Ian Boyne, Contributor

Reports in the press last week about rousing worship in a gay church here, a rise in divorce, AIDS and teenage sexual activity, as well as 12-year-old children in Portland having oral sex with grown men, all relate to a broader phenomenon.

The press tends to discuss hot-button issues like homosexuality, abortion, divorce and sex scandals in isolation from a wider philosophical context. But they cannot be so divorced, if we really want to understand what is really going on in Western society.

The Prime Minister is passionate about strengthening family values in Jamaica and the Leader of the Opposition, Bruce Golding, has joined the campaign.

He says, "It is an issue on which I believe that we can speak with one voice."

But the crisis in family values is much deeper than perhaps both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition understand. There has been a cultural and philosophical sea-change which has taken place since the 1960s particularly, but which roots were sown in the enlightenment. We are now reaping the whirlwind.

The issue really is, what is the ultimate source of authority on matters of morality? Who determines what is right or wrong? And how can we know for sure what is right or wrong for us?

There was a time when we all knew what -- or Who - was the ultimate authority on right and wrong. We knew it was God, and we knew also that the Bible was the means through which He had chosen to communicate His ways to us.

But we don't know that anymore. At least since the enlightenment and the subsequent growth of secularism, there has been a rapid decline in belief in any objective moral code.

Decline in traditional morality

The well-known conservative Asian-American intellect, Dinesh D'Souza, deals with this issue incisively in his latest book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, (which is not as sensationalist as its catchy marketing title suggests).

D'Souza analyses the decline in traditional morality in the United States, which is Jamaica's cultural leader. If you want to know where Jamaica is going culturally, watch what is taking place in the U.S.

"Many Americans locate morality not in a set of external commands but in the imperatives of their own heart. For them morality is not 'out there', but 'in here'. There is now a new morality in America, which may be called the morality of the inner self, the morality of self-fulfilment." Talk to gay people and hear how they justify their lifestyle. You do not hear any philosophical arguments or even any attempt at that.

What you hear is the right to the expression of their sexual feelings, the sovereignty of their desires, the inherent irrationality and injustice of denying their basic sexual urges. The view is, why should the heterosexual be free to express his sexual urges while urging gays to 'control themselves'?

D'Souza continues his analysis: "The liberal promotion of autonomy, individuality and self-fulfillment as moral ideals make it impossible to question or criticise or place limits on these cultural trends.

"In the moral code of self-fulfillment, 'pushing the envelope' or testing the borders of sexual and moral tolerance becomes a virtue and fighting for traditional morality becomes a form of repression or vice."

No stigmatisation

Homosexuality is only the latest hot-button issue and gays are the ones next in line for their 'liberation', but remember the days when it was a shame to be pregnant out of wedlock?

A television host was interviewing me recently about homosexuality and she was expressing alarm over the alleged rise in homosexual activity in Jamaica.

"What is the country coming to?" she was saying to me off-camera.

I reminded her that not long ago she herself would be shamed for having a child outside of wedlock, and yet today as a prominent journalist she can speak publicly about her child with pride and delight. And anyone who dares to say that child is a child of fornication wouldbe roundly condemned in polite society, though that is how the Bible sees it - the same Bible used to bash homosexuals! It is a selective, convenient morality.

There was a time when people living together in common-law unions were seen as sinful or unacceptable in middle and upper class society. Now prominent business people and politicians can do that and are proudly featured on the social pages with their live-in lovers.

That is not going to keep anyone from being elected to office. Divorced people used to be stigmatised. Now, even in churches, they have gained their liberation. The moral behind all of this is that views on right and wrong are not static. They are dynamic. This is what gives the homosexuals hope that one day they will be accepted, too.

And the reason why conservatives are powerless against the onrushing tide of moral change is that tectonic forces are at play and it is harder to detect those than to deal with the surface manifestations.

Philosophical studies

Little attention is paid to philosophical studies, but I keep saying they are crucial in understanding so many phenomena.

Journalists should never be given any professional certification without a heavy dose of philosophy for without it, they cannot make any sense of the data they are called upon to report and analyse. They will be left adrift in a sea of conflicting and contending waves of information, without any anchor.

So, all the discussions today in the media about homosexuality, increasing sexual activity in schools, no-panty days at schools, students doing lap-dance in buses, sex among young children, increase in carnal abuse, the proliferation of massage parlours and increasing infidelity, are devoid of context.

Take the homosexuality issue: Why is homosexuality wrong? Most Jamaicans will say because the Bible says so and because it is unnatural. But what if individuals choose to do what is unnatural and against the Bible? Shouldn't they have the right to do so?

The crucial questions are: Do minorities have rights? Granted that the majority in the society abhor homosexuality, do they have the right to impose their views on those who disagree?

On what basis can we, as a democratic, pluralistic society, deny freedom of association to gay people who want their own church?

Should we not be embarrassed as a civilised society that gay people have to be hiding to meet, for fear of their lives, when the constitution protects freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

Can we separate the civil liberties, human rights issues from the issues of sexual morality?

Human rights legislation and discourse has always been protective of the rights of minorities. One can understand if the majority decides that the minorities cannot do certain things which offend public sensibilities or 'public morality', for even the Jamaican gays would acknowledge that the vast majority of Jamaicans detest homosexual behaviour and even homosexuals.

Their respect for the rights of the majority would suggest an understanding that there might be certain restrictions on their public display of affection for one another.

Jamaicans who debate the homosexuality issue have to be consistent. If we are using the Bible as the guide, then let us not be selective. The death penalty was prescribed in the Old Testament for not only homosexuals, but also for fornicators and adulterers the Bible does put forward the view that homosexuality is unnatural and, therefore, some deduce is worse ethically than fornication and adultery which are "natural sins", the penalty is the same for transgressions.

So, if fornicators and adulterers have civil liberties - like freedom of association and assembly - why should gay people be hiding to attend church or having men policing the grounds of their worship assemblies, looking out for people with murderous intent?

Threat to Christian agenda

Can godly heterosexual church men and women support their right to meet, while condemning their practice of homosexuality? Of course, conservative Christians fear that if you "give them an inch they will take a yard". They feel that even 'liberal-sounding' articles like this only embolden the gay agenda. Giving them little victories, for example conceding their right to meet in their own churches, will only lead to more demands until homosexuality is normalised and mainstreamed, it is felt.

While some Christians do not really support violence against homosexuals, they feel that if the hostile or vehement secular opposition to homosexuality abate, after a while we will be accepting homosexuality as okay. It is the slippery slope thinking which hardens some.

But my point is that the hold of traditional sexual morality is losing its grip, and this is the biggest threat to the Christian agenda.

The host of sexual issues which the Press has been highlighting in Jamaica show that the Western (largely American) cultural disease is advanced in Jamaica and will soon reach epidemic proportions.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.