Response to Karima Parris
Fri Mar 01, 2013
Editor: I start with a quote from my letter:
“I do not think the debate should be based on religion. It should not be decisive what Leviticus or St Paul or other Biblical characters say. Law is a codification of societal values, about how people en masse think and feel. If the majority of people wish to practise anal intercourse, then the law should reflect this preponderance of belief. Mutatis mutandis.”{{more}}
My argument was that basing your argument on religion — no matter which religion — will not convince non-believers; and that law has to reflect societal values. The assumption is that we are a democratic society. In a democracy, numbers matter.
In our society, most men are heterosexuals. Another way to put this is to say that normal men are heterosexuals, and that those who practise homosexual styles are in the minority. Statistically, they constitute an abnormal tail in the distribution. In a democracy, the sexual orientation of the majority will have a significant bearing on what laws get enacted. For some reason, this way of thinking is absurd to Ms Parris. Could it be that the agenda that she speaks of is anti-democratic?
She made an appeal to the Torah to support her position, reminding us of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Is she arguing or simply restating her faith? Then she accuses me of redefining the role of religion, asking: Am I God? Then she says: The proper role of religion is to be a watchdog for morality. Is she not arrogating to herself what she denies me?
Then, she appears to challenge my statement that pure rationality should guide debaters, but it is not a challenge. There is no argument, no rebuttal; merely an opportunity to reiterate the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, to lengthen her letter, as though she is making a new point.
My final comment is the attempt in her opening remarks to discredit me. She writes of silly and outrageous positions and the smallest attempt at reasoning.
Readers may judge.
Cedric B Harold
cbharold@cwjamaica.com
