By Dr Lazarus Castang From caribbean News Now

I read with intrigue Jean Hervé Charles’ account of his journey of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality into his social outlook and perspective, entitled “My take on the LGBT issue”. I want to congratulate him for coming out in defence of the rights of homosexual persons with respect to their humanity and their need for love. However, I must take issue with some elements of his commentary.

Jean has given us his “take” on the hot-button LGBT issue. I will proceed to assess his “take” on five issues arising from his commentary, namely, (1) his truncated diversity; (2) his conflation of issues; (3) his interpretational overreach; (4) his weak analogies; and (5) his overgeneralization.

His truncated diversity is betrayed by the statement, “I learned there is beauty in diversity” in the context of his commentary. Diversity in his writing includes the acceptance and tolerance of homosexual “identity”, which is consumed with their relationships and sexual preference. Therefore, those who disapprove of their relationships and sexual preference on cultural, religious and moral grounds are bigots and haters, intolerant and lacking in understanding of diversity and homosexual issues.

Jean’s moral truncation is in his cognitive failure to recognize that the moral/sexual perspectives/practices of homosexuals as well as other Caribbean people, and in particular Christians, are equally legitimate parts of the diversity landscape. Diversity incorporates homosexual opposition to certain religious doctrine, practices, lifestyle and principles as well as Christian opposition to homosexual doctrine, practices and lifestyle.

Not uniformity, but differences prove diversity. Diversity may necessitate tolerance or fair accommodation, but not approval-acceptance, for its smooth existence. It is an authoritarian quest to advocate for a monolithic Caribbean on the approval of homosexuality.

Many homosexuals tolerate religion but do not accept any religion that disapproves of their relations and sexual preference. Tolerance is more a matter of the reasonable just accommodation or comfortable endurance of difference and agreeing to disagree. Homosexual contentions against religion prove the point of diversity. On the other hand, Christians may tolerate homosexuals but not accept/approve their relations and sexual preferences. A parent may disapprove of the behaviour of a child yet love the child.

As imperfect humans, it is not always easy for such moral balance of love and disapproval to be maintained with equity, consistency and longevity on both sides, yet it should be a worthy goal that our Caribbean societies must pursue for our peaceful coexistence. Therefore, any apparent call for the Caribbean to give up their moral beliefs and/or for some Christians to give up their understanding of Scripture in order for homosexuals to feel accepted and lovingly supported in their relations and practices is un-right, ill-fated and anti-diversity in a fundamental sense.

Therefore, for Jean to call for diversity and write such lopsided commentary may be politically correct, but morally biased, faddish but imbalanced, and popular but flounder-like with both eyes on one side. This is more a matter of ethics than law.

Jean conflates two issues — moral judgment/conviction with personal hatred. He seems to treat them as one and the same. But such conflation is internally contradictory, for personal hatred is antithetical to good moral judgment. Personal hatred, as it relates to homosexuals, is a moral evil that even Christians should hate. What verbal irony that the vice of hating people such as homosexuals should be hated.

Jean cannot be allowed to spout the impression that to morally disapprove of homosexual relations and practices is to personally hate them. Such political and psychological gimmick should not be allowed to fly.

Given that some people, yea even professed Christians, conflate disapproval of homosexuality with hatred of homosexuals in talk and practice, one still cannot push for an absence of moral disapproval and still talk of freedom or diversity, or even personal conscience. Such push for an absence of moral disapproval is an attempt to kill individuality, social conscience, and religious scruples on the issue and selectively push for the disregard of sexual morals or conventions or the creation of a moral vacuum in which homosexuality is the only social untouchable the world has ever known for the sake of security from unconscionable violence against homosexuals.

Jean must understand that homosexuality cannot be blindly pushed as though it is the only thing on earth others are not allowed to religiously oppose or be morally or culturally diverse on without being called a bigot or hater. If the bigot or hater label were to be true simply for moral disapproval of homosexual practices, then Christians can accuse homosexuals and pro-homophiles of Bible phobia and reverse bigotry and hatred.

Jean must also understand that the pope has not said that he will jettison his church doctrine and policy on homosexuality. In the pope saying, “Who am I to judge that they are offending God?” or “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?” I do not hear the Pope saying that God has not judged that homosexual behaviour offends Him. The subject of the judging is the pope, not God.

If the words of the pope are properly parsed in context, it has not provided clear political support for a vacation of moral judgment of homosexuality, but for the urgent need of mercy. Orientation is not practice or expression. Any allegation for the vacation of moral judgment on homosexuality from such papal statement is but an interpretational overreach and political overdraft.

For the Christian, morality is transcendent, based on the character and commands of God. At the deepest level, however, morality is unenforceable. People are accepted into the Christian faith on profession of faith in Christ, not on moral perfection or its failproof verification in their ongoing life.

Furthermore, Jean must avoid the implication of vilifying the Caribbean morality or the Christian faith in order to normalize homosexuality in the Caribbean. Such vilification is contained in his word-choices — bigotry and hatred. Christians are called to hate, not human beings (homosexuals included), but wrong done by humans and to humans, including homosexuals.

Like any other sin, homosexual acts are to be hated too, not homosexual persons. Christians are called to hate sin but, if homosexual acts as sin are pushed as homosexual identity, herein lies a moral deception and the impossibility of moral distinction. The homosexual person is reduced to the homosexual act as his identity in which he has no choice over his sexual behaviour.

In fact, the very all-consuming emphasis on their sexual preference seems to elevate their preference to conspicuity above their person as humans. Therefore, the homosexual practice is inadvertently thrown into a bunker pathology by such psychology.

Lastly, a word must be said about Jean’s weak analogies and his overgeneralization. The use of weak analogues for homosexuality like the case of black people, indigenous people, women, children, the animals and the trees and the plants is overdrawn. These comparisons are weak because ethnicity, gender, age, care for the environment and so on do not spring from an orientation expressed in acts.

The best analogies for homosexuality are sexual analogies like pedophilia (sexual orientation toward kids), which is an orientation that can be accompanied by practice, against both of which there may or may not be legal prohibitions and consequences in some places. If biological impulses are made to support or justify homosexuality, then the same can be said of pedophilia. This is an ethical argument, not a legal one.

Much more can be said here, but in the interest of space I must move over to address Jean’s overgeneralization.

In an overzealous effort at gay advocacy, Jean penned, perhaps, one of his most egregious statement in his commentary: “I have had later in life many friends who were homosexual couples and I have found they express their love for each other much better and much longer than we straight people engage in ours.” In essence, homosexual relations are qualitatively superior to and more durable than straight relations.

Jean must not allow his subjectivity to so thoroughly cloud his objectivity in the public arena on such momentous issue. To cut to the chase, any comparative analysis must be decided on a case by case basis, so such overgeneralization is out of place. Loyalty and love, passion, intimacy and commitment are human traits, talents and skills are human gifts, not lifestyle consequences exclusive to or derived from homosexuality.

Furthermore, sexual difference (male-female binary) is the basis of sexual relationships from the creation order. If loving expressions and duration are all that matter for sexual relations, then Jean is free to promote mother-son, father-daughter, man-boy and man-goat relations in the Caribbean. Such arguments, however, are myopic, insular and brazenly faddish. People of faith are called to exercise genuine Christian compassion toward homosexual persons without sacrificing their moral convictions and principles.

lazarus_castang2.jpg
Dr Lazarus Castang is a licensed psychotherapist and an ordained SDA Minister of Religion. He holds a PhD in Old Testament, a Masters in Psychotherapy, and has completed studies in basic medical science. He has ministered to several communities in the Caribbean, Canada and the US and has provided therapy to individuals, couples and groups. He is a graduate of the University of Southern Caribbean in Trinidad and Andrews University in Michigan. He has written five theological books and several articles on social relations. ([email protected])

For more on this story go to: http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Commentary%3A-On-the-LGBT-issue-in-the-Caribbean%3A-Why-Jean-H.-Charles-is-wrong-31041.html