Editor: In my letter of February 17, I in no way intended to hurt anyone or to encourage unjust victimization of anyone. It was my intention to join the public debate on homosexuality. I wish to elucidate aspects of the debate, which I feel have not been considered. {{more}}

I am Catholic and as such know only too well what it means to be unfairly judged and ridiculed. Many Vincentians have never taken the time to sit with a practising Catholic or a Catholic Priest to discuss the Catholic faith. They have not read any of the doctrinal teachings of the Church for themselves. They are however prepared to sit in judgment of hearsay. For example, many have said Pope John Paul II of blessed memory is the Devil. John Paul’s death has proven that statement to be ignorance par excellence. To those who believe John Paul was the Devil, does this mean the Devil is dead?

So, Ms. Alvis, to the matter at hand: The harm of individuals or their property is not the only concern as it relates to the exercise of freedoms and making of Law. One must also consider the effect on public morality and maintaining of order both for now and tomorrow. If in considering these matters I fixate only on my own immediate happiness to the point of ignoring the good of the wider society, and in particular society’s weak and vulnerable, then what kind of person am I? My actions as an individual have consequences and can influence impressionable members of my community. Life is not about me, myself and I.

We must consider that there are other special interest groups looking on eagerly, taking careful note of the successes of homosexuals, and awaiting their day in the sun. In the USA where the gay movement has successfully lobbied to change laws concerning marriage, do you know that an organized group of pedophiles is now lobbying for the removal of all age of consent Laws? I know it sounds unbelievable, so check it out yourself. Go online, get into the Google search engine and type in NAMBLA, see what comes up. The members of NAMBLA are adult males who want to have sex with pre-pubescent boys. They have now hitched their load to the wagon of the gay movement claiming their rights are also being denied by not changing the law. We must take note of the ripple effect of changing JUST laws simply to suit one special interest group.

A short time ago the Catholic Church was plunged into scandal when the story of pedophile Priests broke. The majority of the cases of abuse involved teenagers, so the problem was not pedophilia (which involves prepubescent children) but homosexuality. This, more than anything else, is the reason Pope Benedict has barred all homosexuals from entering seminaries and requires that persons be recovered from homosexuality for two years before they can enter. Those whose responsibility it was to train priests must have said to themselves, “What harm can come of letting through one or two”? We now know the answer to that. The Church has been visited by the Vine Dresser and came out well pruned.

Sex of any sort involves moral issues. It is illogical to suggest the State can’t legislate morality when according to you Ms Alvis, it already does. There are laws against murder, arson, rape, stealing, and homosexual intercourse. The point of law is to exert moral control. Some people will not of their own volition behave themselves like nice boys and girls. Without the moral control of law we would descend into anarchy.

Ms Alvis, likening single parent homes to homosexual unions is not charitable toward struggling single parents. If your comparison is taken to be true you have disqualified homosexual unions for adoption rights. Most jurisdictions will not allow single persons to adopt. Why should the rules be bent for homosexuals? The above comparison however is not accurate. For some children of single parents, contact with their fathers is not possible, yet even in these situations the child will still be introduced “early on” to the truth that children are born of a mother and a father. In still other cases the children enjoy visiting relationships with their fathers. In still other cases children are fortunate enough to have their mother eventually marry their father or find another husband who will be stepfather. The children will have no opportunity for the above in a homosexual union.

It is true that homosexuals come from heterosexual unions. By stating the above you agree that heterosexual unions are the only sexual unions which can produce children. I am quite certain that the majority of homosexual persons appreciate having both a mother and a father, why then attempt to deny vulnerable children the same?

In SVG there are laws against homosexual intercourse. There are those in our society who are asking that we change those laws. Why can’t I ask that we don’t? Who knows what we will be asked to accept after that?

SALT