No freedom is absolute

EDITOR: Last week there was a New Times program in which the host EG Lynch and his callers were assessing the pros and cons of allowing a boat full of homosexuals to dock and disembark in SVG. I gathered that some callers stringently voiced their opposition to any such proposal. I must agree with such opposition. It seems that the ship’s passengers are traveling through the region declaring that they are homosexuals and have every intention of carrying on homosexual activities. {{more}}To flagrantly proceed under this declaration is a deliberate attempt to provoke response. Think about it: with all other vessels and aircraft entering SVG no one knows the sexual orientation of any of the passengers or for that matter wants to. Why should these passengers, outside of deliberate mischief, declare their unsolicited intentions to break the laws of SVG?

There exists a school of thought that persons should be allowed the freedom to express their sexual preferences as they wish, under the guise of being “progressive” and exhibiting “civilized tolerance”. This school of thought should be informed by the fact that no freedom is absolute and sexual intercourse of any kind has never been, is not now, nor will ever be a right.

I am quite certain that pedophiles, rapists and practitioners of bestiality and incest would argue that they wish the freedom to express their sexual preferences. Yet no civilized society would for a moment be confused or hesitant about denying them any such satisfaction. Clearly, such activities would be harmful to society and the State has the responsibility to protect its citizens however young or old they may be.

The problem we face, as experience has shown, is that homosexuals will not be satisfied with having homosexual activities decriminalized. There will be an attempt at greater social acceptance of this phenomenon, and ultimately an attempt to gain legal recognition for same sex unions.

Homosexual activities may seem harmless, one may well ask what harm can they do in their bedrooms. When we consider that in the same way many older men induce young women/teen aged girls with gifts and money to provide sexual favors,the same is true of homosexuals. The State must safeguard public morality to protect especially the young from erroneous ideas about sex.

Marriage takes place between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and rearing of children and mutual help and support of each other. In this family unit children learn to relate to both sexes and how both sexes complement each other. The children produced will one day take their place in society.

By comparison homosexual unions are woefully lacking. Two persons of the same sex cannot procreate. Were same sex unions to be given the same legal standing as marriage, they would have adoption rights; this would indeed be unfortunate. Children’s vulnerability, and dependence would be deliberately used to place them at a disadvantage. Such children would be denied either Mother or Father, both needed for healthy human development. Were homosexuality to become widespread, the very continuity of society would be endangered. How would we replace our population?

The State has a responsibility to protect the family for the greater good of society. Further, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child holds that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Should we allow our tolerance to be abused while we bend over backwards to the point of endangering our society? No!

SALT