THE EDITOR, Sir:
AS MORE effort is put into the study of the phenomenon of homosexuality, in our ever-changing understanding of basic human psychology the evidence is emerging quite clearly to confirm that one's sexual orientation is directly determined by genetic code which instinctively prompts behaviour.
However, the findings appear to count for naught where fundamentalists are concerned. In place of evidence and reasoned argument, they continue to cling tenaciously to primitive, superstitious ideas and selective quotations of out-of-context Bible passengers as the basis for their belief that a homosexual disposition is the result of personal choice.
If one should think carefully and deeply enough, one would soon discover that religious, or any other form of dogma, are descended from tribal cultures based on opinion, imagination and the likes. Acceptable behaviour in one culture is often frowned upon by another.
The Bible itself is replete with examples of so-called 'divine edicts' ranging from the ridiculous to the reprehensible even criminal in some instances, judged against civilised values. Look at all that bloodshed in the Old Testament committed in the name of God! Consider for a moment, the injunction against men who wore their hair long (1 Cor. 11:14), the question of divorce and re-marriage (Matt. 5:32), or the morality of celibacy in the context of Genesis 2:18, to cite just a few examples. Who in this world regards any of these pronouncements as guidelines for acceptable moral conduct?
In the natural order of things, mutations occur to individuals primarily by chance without regard to the safety or comfort to the individual. Evolution is not a neatly engineered process.
Each species must develop in its sphere and seek survivability for itself. Life in its many creations has tried various survival mechanisms. In the case of the human species, intellect is its most valuable survival tool. So while instinct is the driving force in the behaviour of all organisms, the human being can exercise intellectual control over his/her instinct.
To judge the morality of a particular social act is to make an assessment of its impact on survivability. In choosing between behaviour alternatives, the survival of life is paramount. If certain behaviour harms, or is likely to harm, others or self then it is immoral. This is the only reliable guiding principle for determining what is moral and what is not. Therefore, what people do, or fail to do, and not what they are, is what matters ultimately.
Nature having seen to it that only about ten per cent of the human population is of intrinsic homosexual disposition, the condition poses no threat to the survivability of the species, no more so than it could be argued successfully that celibacy of the priesthood constitutes a threat. Engagement in risky sexual activity is neither necessary nor peculiar amongst gay people. It can be avoided altogether without detriment to a mutually fulfilling, quality relationship that is built on genuine love and affection and true respect for each other.
I am, etc.,
'AN OBSERVER',
Portmore
St. Catherine
