Laws against homosexual and transgender activity exist for a number of good reasons

Feb 27, 2010 News

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by “UG-Student” in the Kaieteur News of February 25, 2010 captioned “The Negative Aspects of Homosexuality are due to Society’s Attitude”, and would appreciate the opportunity to respond.  It is easily rebutted on several clear grounds.
First, the letter raises the bar in the level of duplicity and misinformation that the gay-militant community, or else their supporters, would want to foist upon Guyanese.
It offers no references, it cites no figures. In other words, it is constructed on a flimsy framework of innuendo.
Secondly, the evidence will show that it is the “intolerance” and “hatred” of gay-militancy that has shaped social encounters over the past decades.
We assess this sad but true occurrence at page 1 of the online summary “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )
Thirdly, the “UG-Student” blames the homosexual’s “… propensity to sexual promiscuity because they are disallowed any complete interpersonal relationship …” and this would simply be untrue.
The tonnage of literature available states that such “propensity to sexual promiscuity” is a function, firstly, of raging psychosexual disorder and, secondly, a consequential desire to recruit in a spiraling cycle of compulsive domination because they cannot procreate with artificial “sex”.
Readers can get a quick introduction into the psychosexual and politically-correct issues that have tainted the landscape of gay-militant illogic by reading “Sexual Politics And Scientific Logic: The Issue Of Homosexuality” (http://www.pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html) by Dr. Charles W. Socarides.
Fourthly, he/she cites the “loss of friends and the respect of family and dependants” as a function of society’s malice, but this is again untrue.
Readers will undoubtedly get an insight into the true nature of disassociation by reading “The Removal of Homosexuality from the psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm) by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. An excerpt from that same article reads:
“… Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society.
They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition.
Intellectual circles too–who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant–proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right….””
Fifthly, the “UG-Student” refers to “… the agonies of remorse and self torture over what they feel to be their immoral desires …” and this is readily addressed by considering the true nature of the psychosexual deception that fuels same-sex-attraction-disorders.
We should then contemplate the words of Dr. Socarides, cited before at http://www.pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html:
“… [In the late 1960’s] Clearly a disturbing trend was developing, with homosexuals banding together, not to demand help from psychiatry and the medical profession and public recognition of their condition (alongside those individuals with any form of neurosis or emotional disorder) or simply to protest against legal injustices, but to proclaim their “normality” and attack all opposition to this view…
By declaring a condition a “non-condition,” a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders.
The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years, for example, the Report of the Committee of Cooperation with Governmental (Federal) Agencies of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1955); the New York Academy of Medicine Report (1964); the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch of the APA done in 1970-72 (Socarides, et. al., 1973)….”
Sixthly, in an attempt to equate the Gay-militant agenda with the civil rights movement, he/she cites that “…There are laws against discrimination on the basis of race and national origin…” Indeed there are, but these laws exist for good, sound, social reasons. First reading by Guyanese citizens should therefore be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia’s treatment “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right” (http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html). The following excerpt is instructive:
“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license.
This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate is granting “rights” to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….”
Altogether, these solid pieces of evidence illustrate the folly in the UG-Student’s arguments, and are addressed in even greater detail in online article “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality”
Roger Williams

---

---