Dear Editor,

Is it possible that the widespread apprehension to the idea of reviewing elements of the buggery law in Jamaica is driven more by the fear of what may follow in the society? Or is this objection a reflection of the ignorance that this is really a discussion of human rights and not a discussion about whether or not homosexual practices are morally sound?

Is it possible that there is a fear that if one disagrees with elements of this law, in any way, shape or form, that disagreement will be seen as a support of homosexual practices. And so, instead of addressing the real human rights issues, people are simply answering to the question of whether or not they believe homosexuality is correct?

Should God be blamed for sin because He chose to place a restriction on the tree that is known as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? Was there any other way for the freedom of choice to be activated?

What is morality? Is it objectively or subjectively determined? Who should decide what is morally sound or morally objectionable? Should morality be legislated? For example, should every Jamaican be legally required to attend Church? And which day of the week would that be? How long would the services be held for? Shouldn’t such questions be left to each individual to determine for him/herself?

Should each individual enjoy a private, protected space (PPS) within which to make particular personal choices based on his/her preferences? And what would primarily determine what falls within this PPS? Could a general approach be that as long as my choices in no way infringes on another’s own choices regarding the same subject matter, I should be free so to do?

Should individuals reserve the right to differ in their moral stance on a particular issue? Should people who share similar moral values be free to form groups and be also free to solicit others to join their cause? What is the role of government in this? Should government provide a platform for all legitimately constituted groups to express their views? Should this freedom to share be restricted to spaces where there are no captive audiences (churches, clubs, print and electronic media, online), but where persons may voluntarily be engaged, or not? How do we relate to spaces with captive audiences like government-operated/affiliated schools and children’s homes? What should determine what these vulnerable groups be exposed to?

With so many questions yet unasked and unanswered, where do we go from here?

Charles Evans

charock01@yahoo.com