Anthony Gomes on ….. Forward forever……David Cameron and Buggery

David Cameron’s ungracious statement at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government was at least unbefitting a British prime minister. It is difficult to understand what prompted him to raise such a sensitive cultural issue as homosexuality, which is deeply embedded in morality. Should the state now assume the role of moral transgressor in the case of Christians, Islamists and the public at large? Does the prime minister not have other significant issues to deal with related to the devastating world recession and the Euro Zone, in particular, instead of wanting to punish those recipients of aid who refuse to bend over forward to suit the contemporary whim of a decadent lifestyle?

In her feature article, “Bugger off, Britain” published in the Gleaner in November, Shirley Richards accurately states: “The retention of the buggery law provides guidance to us as a country between that which is acceptable and that which is not in terms of sexual behaviour. It is the legal underpinning of the tradition of the heterosexual family. It is a guide to parents, children and to our public officials in the matter of sexual affairs. How could the homosexual lifestyle be in the interest of humanity when it leads to nothingness and is fraught with dangers both for the individual and the society?”

David Cameron’s ungracious statement at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government was at least unbefitting a British prime minister. It is difficult to understand what prompted him to raise such a sensitive cultural issue as homosexuality, which is deeply embedded in morality. Should the state now assume the role of moral transgressor in the case of Christians, Islamists and the public at large? Does the prime minister not have other significant issues to deal with related to the devastating world recession and the Euro Zone, in particular, instead of wanting to punish those recipients of aid who refuse to bend over forward to suit the contemporary whim of a decadent lifestyle?

In her feature article, “Bugger off, Britain” published in the Gleaner in November, Shirley Richards accurately states: “The retention of the buggery law provides guidance to us as a country between that which is acceptable and that which is not in terms of sexual behaviour. It is the legal underpinning of the tradition of the heterosexual family. It is a guide to parents, children and to our public officials in the matter of sexual affairs. How could the homosexual lifestyle be in the interest of humanity when it leads to nothingness and is fraught with dangers both for the individual and the society?”

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/Forward-ever_10379614#poll#ixzz1gWNa8NOP

Democracy with all its freedoms is not a licence for people to encourage criminality or otherwise conspire to corrupt public morals. As a Christian nation we must therefore consider the Christian teaching as exemplified by Roman Catholicism in concert with other Christian denominations. Article 2357 of the Roman Catholic Catechism in part states: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that: homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life”. The Catholic Church, however, opposes gay marriage. It teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. The clarion clamour for “tolerance” by homosexual lobby groups is analogous with a call for “acquiescence” with regard to their lifestyle.

Already in 2000 the British Government reduced the age for permissible gay sex from 18 to 16 to provide equality under the law for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Now children can have legal gay sex with children! Is this development progressive or retrogressive? It also indicates the government’s intention to further equalise homosexual rights now coming to pass.

One of the great tragedies with the homosexual lifestyle while trying to equate itself with heterosexuals is the molestation of young boys, as revealed within the last five years, sadly involving major religious international institutions, and currently between prestigious American universities and their sports coaches. The legal approval of gay marriage and legal partnership relationships who seek to adopt children perpetuates the gay lifestyle because the children will inevitably emulate the example of their parents, as practised in heterosexual marriages.

UNAIDS is a group of United Nations agencies which are working to eliminate HIV worldwide and defines homophobia almost hysterically as follows: “UNAIDS describes homophobia as intolerance and contempt for those who have identities and orientations other than heterosexual ones. It is an aversion, hatred, fear, prejudice or discrimination against homosexual men, bisexual people, transgender people, transvestites, lesbians, and transsexuals. Homophobia confers a monopoly of normality on heterosexuality, thus generating and encouraging contempt for those who diverge from the reference model.” If the above is intended to be an educated description of sexual aberration, it would be interesting to see how this UN entity describes necrophilia!

Concerning PM Cameron’s threat to reduce or to withdraw British development aid from Commonwealth countries (including Jamaica), apart from being a “low blow”, one wonders if indeed this is a sentiment harboured by the entire British coalition government. Such consensus would be necessary before the threat can be put into action.

In that dire event, it would be comforting to recall the announcement by the chairman and president of China’s Ex-Im Bank, Li Ruogu, during his visit to Jamaica last September: “The Ex-Im Bank is one of the arms of the Chinese Government which promotes economic and trade relations between China and other countries. We will do our best to develop a strong economic relationship between China and Jamaica. Please trust us; we will be your development partner. This is just the start, definitely not the end. We expect to partner with you in many more projects”. China’s welcome development overture to Jamaica and other Caribbean states is undeniably displacing American and European influence in regional matters of trade. Now, with the West in recession, the way is clear for new alliances to be consummated with willing partners to fill the void created by declining levels of North American and European assistance.

In the final analysis, politicians are transient, but the country they govern continues in perpetuity. Our difference of opinion in this case of social blunder, concerns Prime Minister Cameron’s stated policy towards a Jamaican cultural redline issue of domestic importance and steeped in circumstances of sovereignty which is inviolable. Jamaicans still respect and value highly their relationship with Great Britain, and look forward at this season of peace and goodwill to the passing of this regrettable interlude.