Our Readers' Opinions
June 9, 2006

Playing baby house in the homosexual family

by Dr. Richard A. B. Cox  09.JUN.06

There are some so-called human rights activists who are on a foreign sponsored crusade to corrupt and degrade the values and morals of this country more than they already are. Many ideals, from our belief in the just application of capital punishment to our rejection of homosexuality have been under constant attack by these activists advocating acceptance of moral decadence and ethical and religious decay as decreed by their paymasters. The fact is that twisted and deformed social behaviour is simply that, and no amount of rhetoric regardless of how verbose, should force us into subjugation to immorality, if only for the sake of our children.{{more}}

Some in the religious community have taken up the cause, with the consequence of being accused of letting faith rather than reason speak. In fact the discussion thus far has largely been a hit and run battle between the homosexuals and their fan club on one hand, and these religious moralists on the other. I herein confine my arguments to the natural, scientific, philosophical and social incorrectness of homosexuality. Please bear in mind that these are neither comprehensive nor exhaustive, for after all, this is only one article and not a book.

Two humans of the same sex could never reproduce even if they had intercourse until the Sahara flooded. Consequently, using the basic law of probability, if we all became homosexuals, mankind could cease to exist in two generations. While this probability is virtually zero, it nevertheless demonstrates that reproduction is essential for the continuation of life, meaning that homosexuality goes against the natural order of things. It’s that simple.

The structure of our bodies and natural functions of our reproductive organs further confirms this basic truth. These are nature’s practical rejection of this moral and social malady. And as Frederick Engles in “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition From Ape to Man” stated, every time we interfere with the fundamentals of nature, there is a serious price to pay. While he never claimed an Isaiah vision, history has vindicated him, time and again.

Yes, you’re right, there are abnormal situations in life. But in the same way a cancer is a reality which no sane person will encourage, for cancerous cells and a healthy body are incompatible; and a gangrenous finger must be cut off lest the hand becomes infected and the whole body later perishes; so too must homosexuality be denied breath for it is an unhealthy reality.

Science proves the necessity of the positive negative or vice versa sequence. For example, a circuit for a flashlight works only when the cells (batteries) are placed in this manner. Any school child knows that the positive poles of magnets push each other apart so do the negative; but put negative to positive and voila! Further, the first law of physics clearly shows the indispensability of the “opposite” in the scientific conceptualisation, construction and functioning of our world. It’s elementary; to endorse homosexuality is to stand science on its head.

If memory serves me right, it was in his “Science of Logic” that William Hegel shared the idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Translated into layman terms the idea is that for natural advancement to take place there must be X (thesis) and then Y joins (antithesis) resulting in X+Y (synthesis). Applied to the issue at hand, it is man, plus woman, equals child. Philosophy teaches that the basic tendency of life is to grow; this clearly is not applicable to homosexual unions. And of course there is nothing wise (the original meaning of the word philosophy is love of or for wisdom) in having a relationship which is non-productive and which indeed could lead to the corruption of clean produce if these homosexuals are allow to adopt children? We should strive to be wise as Solomon recommends in the Proverbs.

Man is not merely a biological existence but a social product as well. Accordingly, every society in its quest for orderly progress determines what is morally acceptable behaviour. For example the USA has not banned cigarettes, which kill yearly more than 200,000 of its citizens and which medical science has proven is dangerous to one’s health. They are however still looking for Osama who only killed 3,000 in one year. That is the USA’s right as a society. So too we have determined that homosexuality is not acceptable behaviour in SVG: our right as a society. Or is it that these activists think we have no such right?

Homosexuals are now being allowed to adopt children (the deformation of society supra dictum). Anyone who has taken ten seconds to observe children knows that they live what they learn, in fact we all played baby house as children, acting out the lives of our parents. How is this in the homosexuals’ family, two daddies and no mommy or the other way around? I want the parents of this country to think of this scenario: You have a son, something fatal happens to you and your spouse, the government agrees to his adoption by a so-called same sex union of two men… No, I am not going to continue, I am finished; the rest is up to your imagination.

Conclusion: A homosexual is a misfit in Vincentian society that we should seek to correct, not encourage. Therefore let’s make the activists know, they should keep their nastiness to themselves. Banana and by extension our economy have been victims of globalisation, something we had no control over. National decency however is something to be surrendered, will we? I say no!