Posted on

What are the implications if we keep discriminating against people?


04. APR.08

Editor: I am personally affronted by the letter published in the March 28th issue of the Searchlight newspaper. Not only has the author âSaltâ insulted the integrity of those who identify as being homosexual, but also dared to insinuate that âwe Caribbean peopleâ share the same views, and that âwe Caribbean peopleâ share the same faith. I am not of your faith nor of your unethical attitudes towards homosexuals. Let that be clear.{{more}}

I fail to understand these âeconomicalâ and âsocialâ costs you speak of. You may seriously want to update your statistics; with reference to your claim that homosexuals have a higher risk of STDâs, the following apply: Heterosexuals actually have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS infection in the world, specifically young black females, a statistic not often published due to implications on âraceâ. Also most prevalent in heterosexuals are: Hepatitis B, Syphilis, Crab Lice, Chlamydia, Human Papillomavirus (HPV), and Gonorrhea. It would appear as though the heterosexuals are a bit more costly. In terms of economy, both younger and older generations, that is, what might be your children and your parents, are known to be dependency populations in that they rely on the working population to support them. Using your argument, I might hazard that they are dragging Saint Vincent and the Grenadines down economically as well. Shall we get rid of them, too?

As for your âdisorderâ comment, homosexuality was actually removed from the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual II (or the DSM-II, a catalogue of known disorders and diseases) as a mental disorder in 1973. To be succinct, your claim that homosexuality is a disorder holds no weight within the scientific world. If itâs not classified as a disorder, it is not technically an âillâ, and nothing that should be spoken about in terms of being âcuredâ. Acceptance is the key. What are the implications for our population if we keep marginalizing and discriminating against people? More hate, more violence, more non-acceptances? Sounds like a truly fantastic country you are trying to sculpt.

Iâm sure that a vast percentage of the population would concur that reproduction does not constitute the main reason they engage in sexual activity – although I thought we addressed that in the 1960s with the Sexual Revolution. If the heterosexuals can do it for pleasure, why not the homosexuals? In a world of 6 billion people where we barely have enough resources to feed ourselves, Iâd think a non-reproductive means of sex would be welcome. The whole prospect of heterosexual procreation has led to a lot of crowding and misery, donât you reckon? And by the way, if Iâm infertile or impotent, should I be allowed to enter the institution of marriage whereby I should only engage in sexual activity to reproduce, or should I be tossed out as useless along with the homosexuals?

And speaking to the whole ânaturalâ argument, the following species have been observed engaging in homosexual activity: Bison, Swans, Mallards, Dolphins, Penguins, Elephants, Dragonflies, Lions, Fruit Flies, Giraffes, Sheep, Lizards, and Hyena. It would appear as though not all species in the natural world engage in sex to procreate. Go figure, it actually is natural.

While I could argue incessantly that the Bible is archaic and that it holds little weight in the face of contemporary social norms, Iâd rather match your use of the Bible against homosexuality with my own, as a final point..

I ponder the following:


A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I donât agree, can you settle this?

