Drop the charade of religiosity in anti-homosexual debate
Dear Editor,
The debate about homosexuality has been heating up over the past decade, and many who are in opposition cite scripture and refer to the description of Jamaica as a Christian society as the root of their opposition.
That, for me, is laughable because it simply is misrepresenting the truth. It is true that the good book comes down harshly on buggery, and it is also true that our laws have some grounding in Judaeo-Christian values, but we routinely cherry-pick which laws to follow.
We allow common law marriage, which is just a fancy way of two people shacking up, and nobody complains on biblical grounds. We entitle bastard children to equal rights and all is mum when it comes to biblical complaints. We even go so far as to allow women to have seniority (not to be confused with ‘activity’) in the church and the majority of biblical scholars applaud.
Now, some do complain about all these issues and really preach that fourth-century lifestyle. But the majority don’t; they move with the times, adjust, and reinterpret scripture as it suits them.
I would have more time for the anti-gay lobby if those in opposition dropped the charade of religiosity and called a spade a spade. They don’t like homosexuality because it disgusts them, and that frankly, is a reasonable position to have. They don’t accept homosexuality because it is weird and different and a ‘foreign’ culture.
All of the above are reasonable positions to hold, and one that I’m sure no gay lobbyists would hold over people’s heads. But to ground your opposition in a book written 2,000 years ago, when much of the book isn’t followed as is, does a serious disservice to the church — an institution which, love it or hate it, has always had reasoned thought behind its decisions.
In Jamaica the religion-based argument usually wins, for the church has the voice both socially and politically, and it knows how to use it. But it must get over the habit of grounding personal dislike and dissatisfaction in scripture because quite frankly it looks petty, reeks of hypocrisy, and shames the institution that used to use reason and not the bully pulpit to bring forth its arguments.
Yours truly,
Alexander Scott
