|Letter: Dr Lazarus Castang's response to Colin Robinson|
|Published on July 23, 2014||
Email To Friend Print Version|
Thanks Colin for taking the time to respond to my commentary. I was surprised at your alarming misreading of the fundamentals of my commentary. After carefully analyzing your submission, it became clear that your response provided no defence of morality, or of homosexuality, or of the morality of homosexuality. Instead, with simplistic diversionary tactic you ask me to change the subject from the immorality of homosexuality to issues of violence, inequality, and environmental destruction. If moral repugnance against homosexuality entails demeaning and disrespecting gay people, then moral repugnance against so-called “homophobic” preachers entails demeaning and disrespecting them too. By the way, your statement on radio that “there is no right to homosexual behaviour” connotes the immorality of homosexual behaviour.
Two observations to your response are: (1) the implication that homosexual orientation compels and justifies sexual actualization/acting out is an effective defence to deny personal responsibility or admit pathology of moral agency. Moreover, the homosexual fallacy that whatever is, is natural, or whatever repeats itself or recurs in nature is natural, fails to differentiate normality from abnormality, morality from immorality, and design/order from disorder. Such narrow reasoning constrains itself to accept only recurrence as the measure of naturalness and the benchmark of morality. In/with human nature, both pathology and crimes meet the criterion of recurrence to pass as natural. With such reasoning homosexuality like pedophilia is natural, though illegal and legally discriminated against. Inherited or cultivated tendencies (so-called minority trait) cannot be used to morally justify acts of pedophilia or homosexuality or any act for that matter.
(2) The violation of law does not establish a law of violation. The fact that illegal drug trafficking and use are prevalent does not necessitate the abolition of laws against illegal drug trafficking and use. Furthermore, Caribbean sodomy laws do not make homosexual acts capital crimes, nor are they legal sentences to be effected by citizens without due process of law. Legal condemnation of homosexual acts is not at once a legal endorsement to kill, abuse, persecute, harass, or intimidate homosexuals. No Caribbean law gives Caribbean citizens the legal right to take the law into their own hands to punish violators. Such insular assumption/conclusion represents an unfounded homosexual perception that does cohere with Caribbean reality.
Your inattention to details and selective misrepresentation of my commentary have led to blatant misinterpretation and miscommunication. On radio, you seem more careful and well-reasoned. Now I am wondering if you did not sleep well. I prefer the more careful and well-reasoned Colin on radio than the Colin on Internet. Bring back the radio, Colin.
Dr Lazarus Castang
here to receive daily news headlines from Caribbean News Now!
Dr. Lazarus' Fallacious Anti-Gay Arguments Part One
1. TRYING TO MAKE MALE HOMOSEXUALITY AND ANAL SEX MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Calling anal sex a â€śhomosexual actâ€ť is inaccurate.
Anal sex is NOT a mandatory or de-facto expression of male homosexual intimacy. It is not and never has been an exclusively gay sex position. It is merely sex position on a WIDE MENU of sex positions which people of ALL orientations choose to practice based on their personal tastes. In fact many gay men do not like it and do not do it as there are many other options to choose from to express intimacy, love and affection towards their partner. A 2011 study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine sampled 24,787 gay and bisexual men. The single most commonly reported behavior was kissing on the mouth (74.5%), followed closely by oral sex (72.7%) and mutual masturbation (68.4%). Only about one-third of men in the sample reported engaging in anal sex (37.2%).
On the other hand, several sex surveys put heterosexual participation in anal sex at 30%. According to the US Center for Disease Control, 44% of straight men and 36% of straight women admit to having had anal sex. We also know this is not some recent thing. There are heterosexual depictions of anal sex in the Karma Sutra, Edo-era Japanese erotica, Peruvian carvings, Victorian literature. Even in the bible, when Paul described the Roman women changing the natural use of the man, he was referring to the common Roman practice of women having anal sex during pagan orgiastic rites. The Romans valued paternity and did not want their women siring bastards, even during their pagan sex rites. In fact using anal as a contraceptive form of sex became a fallout result of the Abstinence Movement in the USA with many teens opting for it to remain â€śtechnicallyâ€ť virgins. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), an advocacy group that promotes comprehensive sex education found that students who pledge abstinence are four times more likely to have anal sex than their non-pledging peers. See the full report here: http://lsrj.org/documents/factsheets/13_Abstinence_Only_Sex_Ed.pdf
Calling anal sex a â€śhomosexual actâ€ť stems from an attempt leverage the personal distaste a lot of people feel for the act against the ENTIRE gay male population. To increase the distaste, some anti-gay advocates find the most rare, extreme, fringe, violent and irresponsible examples and try to assert this is how it ALWAYS is for ALL gay men. We all know Mr. Sempa â€śeat da poo pooâ€ť pastor from Uganda showing scat porn to unsuspecting and uneducated people and saying this is what ALL and ONLY gay men do. What DISHONESTY! Why would they need to resort to these dirty tricks?
Anal sex is not everyoneâ€™s cup of tea. The same can be said of other sex positions as well. But it is NOT a reason legislate against an entire demographic based on the ASSUMPTION that is what they do in bed.
There are comprehensive sex manuals for HETEROSEXUALS about anal sex. If indeed anal sex is to be done safely and pleasurably for both parties, it requires extensive preparation, lots of communication, patience, expertise, serious protection and moderation. In fact the SAME applies to unprotected vaginal sex, especially if the woman has any number of physical conditions or reproductive perimeters that prevent unplanned spontaneous sex.
The problems seems to be, both for anal and vaginal sex, a lack of preparation, lack of communication, impatience and selfishness, being promiscuous and refusing to use protection. So is it really any surprise that the highest group contracting HIV are heterosexual WOMEN and GAY MALE BOTTOMS respectively- those in the recipient role. In both cases it is MEN in the penetrator role whose callousness and carelessness make them the primary transmitters. It is only made worse when women and gay men give up their power and show no concern for their health. The rates of HIV are even higher among women and gay men who are disadvantaged and/or drug addicts and/or desperate and/or dependent and so are always in a sexually disempowered situation to men in the penetrator role.
When people like Dr. Castang pile on misinformation, condemnation and shame on top of that disempowerment that already exists we just continue to drive down-low, disempowered and desperate behavior which is WHY the spread happened so rapidly in our so-called â€śGod-fearingâ€ť Caribbean, in the first place.
Our outdated laws based on Victorian prudery and misconceptions DO NOT DIFFRENTIATE between two men in a consensual relationship practicing whatever kind of safe sex they choose and a sexual predator raping boys.
It DOES NOT HONOR a gay manâ€™s HUMAN RIGHT to privacy once he is not robbing anyone else of THEIR human rights and freedoms.
It is a law meant to invade the privacy of, prosecute and malign homosexual men PERIOD and treat them ALL like pariahs.
And what is this law based upon? A religiously biased, unenlightened opinion on human sexuality which has been long discarded by the respected medical community as well as the very countries that once enforced it. It has also been rejected by the international human rights community. Why? Because Morality in terms of universal, social laws to govern a diverse population cannot be based on religious bias but on the protection of human rights and freedoms. We have a right to life. We have a right to security and freedom. We have a right to property. We have a right to privacy.
What goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults is NO BUSINESS of the State UNLESS it threatens any of those aforementioned rights. Dr. Castang is yet to substantiate in ANY secular or legal argument to support his claim that two men or two women in a committed relationship threaten the life, freedom, property, privacy of any other citizen.