Answer my questions, please?
THE Professor Brendan Bain issue is not simply nine-day talk. I doubt if it will go away any time soon. It affects the whole business of giving professional opinions. And, it highlights a shift in our value system.
My main concern, though, is that it does appear that anyone who protests against the sensitisation of our people to homosexuality might be victimised. And, further, it does appear that anyone who insists that men should act like men, and women act like women is viewed as trampling on human rights.
On March 27 this year, I posed the question in the headline of my piece, which was 'Is this what we want?' The gist of it was a question whether we want our men to act like women and vice versa. This is in keeping with my song Man fi look like man which I wrote in 2006 and taped in 2007.
To be sure, there were many comments, most of them very critical. But none of them answered my question, which was: Is this what we want? While I believe that homosexual acts are sinful, I do not pass judgement on anyone and I do not advocate violence done to anyone.
But how do we respond to the growing trend of effeminacy in men and macho women in light of the fact that a week from Sunday (June 15), we will be celebrating Father's Day? If we became a total society of effeminate men, should we then simply have Mother's Day alone?
Last week, my column was entitled 'That's not how you stop it'. I mentioned that I was in a mountainous rural district early last month and stopped at the police station to ask for directions. It dawned on me when I returned to Kingston that I only saw women police. I asked if it is the sort of message that we wish to send to our men that women are there to protect men, instead of the other way around.
Again, there was criticism online, although some agreed with me, but no one answered the question. 'Sanity' and Rohan Scott were of the opinion that I am old-fashioned and that I need to come into the 21st century. But Rohan Scott should explain where in the article I argued that policewomen were inferior in the execution of their duties? That is not my view.
'Sanity' opined that I was going senile and that I wandered from the topic, but I did not. And this was one of the same persons who focused on the paragraph about police but did not answer my question. I am of the view that when someone is a full-fledged homosexual, it is too late to do very much about it. Where you start is in the early stages, like the adage 'bend the tree from it is young'.
I was trying to point to a way of curtailing effeminacy that many times leads to homosexuality by using a graphic example of something that needs to be addressed. In my teaching days, had I given a question-and-answer test on the paragraph about the police and Sanity or Rohan Scott wrote as they did, I would have given them zero.
When the Jamaica Constabulary Force first admitted women in the 1950s, the women dealt with crimes done by women. Today, they are trained like men. Is that good for them? Is that good for Jamaican men? When the men act effeminately, who are the real losers: the women or the men? How do women find real men for their husbands? How does this affect family life? Please answer these questions.
True, policewomen give great help to the cause of fighting crime and that, of course, is a positive, but is it a good message to send to our young men? And, it would help if people would state why they say it is a positive message or why they say it is a negative message, or why they say that it does not matter one way or the other.
And could online readers answer two more questions? First, are there other reversals of roles in the society and what, in your opinion, are these? I am extending the premise, whether true or false, that the environment is the main cause of homosexuality - even though the genesis of that disorder is largely unexplained.
Second, if homosexuality is learnt behaviour, where in your opinion have local homosexuals learned such behaviour? It is only when we do sufficient analysis that we can collectively attempt to curtail such behaviour. I know that the homosexuals ask why should we make any attempts to curtail their behaviour, so I pose this question to those who, like myself, opine that such behaviour should be curtailed.
It is not fair to impose that sort of behaviour on others, especially if the majority is not in favour of it. If it is true that homosexuals are more likely to get AIDS than heterosexuals, then it behoves us to nip it in the bud before it gets full-blown.
Old-fashioned Christians like myself actually believe that homosexual acts are sinful. I am cognisant of the ploy that is used on anyone with Christian values, that they are living in a previous century, but I am not in any way intimidated by it.
I imagine that there are those who believe in honesty, good family life and would be told that they need to be hauled into the 21st century. Little do they know that their misguided value system is a relic from the pirates, three-and-a-half centuries ago.
In response to 'Black British', the changed response of some churches to homosexuality goes back to the 1960s. In September 1975, Time magazine, in an article on homosexuality, referred to the Roman Catholic Church as being "backward" because it was the only mainline church still stating categorically that homosexuality is sin.
Is this why the sins of some priests were exposed? Was this an attempt to get the Roman Catholic Church to change its stance? I do not subscribe to the view that homosexuality is OK just because it is possible. Nor do I subscribe to the view that a woman's ability should take priority over what is good for the society.
Some of our problems are caused by the fact that many in our society are only concerned about their own interest and not those of others. In any event, please answer my questions. Is this what we want? Is this the sort of message that we want to convey to our young men?