I refer to the letter by SASOD captioned ‘LGBT community must take centre stage in consultations on sexual orientation, gender identity laws‘ (SN, March 26).
The essential task has always been to provide the information necessary for citizens of Guyana to make responsible and informed decisions. SASOD, unfortunately, has never been faithful to that task, and a crude mixture of innuendo, semantic jiggery pokery and outright deception have been the casual trademark of that organization. It is unfortunate that their aims seem to be supported, strangely, by some in the AFC.
A classic example is the fact that Dr Jeffrey Satinover (‘Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth‘) offers at Chapters 11 and 12 the evidence that remedies to same-sex-attraction-disorders are not uncommon. He also alludes in Table 7 to fifteen secular outcome studies that have recorded varying degrees of success (some as high as 82%) with the correction of same-sex-attraction-disorders. The AFC and SASOD, predictably, will not touch the evidence Dr Satinover provides.
In September 2010, we had directed the attention of Guyana’s Parliament and other organizations to the substantial evidence against the proposals made by SASOD and other anti-religious, anti-law and anti-country groups in Guyana. The summary of that evidence is contained in the online article ‘Universal Periodic Review: Open Letter to Guyana’s Parliamentarian’s September 2010.’
The legal, political, social, religious, moral and constitutional calamity that the AFC and SASOD are trying to impose on Guyana are staggering in their naïevete and reckless avoidance of fact and evidence, and speak to the blind pursuit of a liberal agenda that is literally ruinous to the state.
Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier in their online article ‘Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right‘ have summarised the position facing the government and people of Guyana well: “When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and licence. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviours, and certainly not those behaviours 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 granting ‘rights‘ to behaviours 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.”
The Christian community in Guyana should note the following fact: ‘homosexuality‘ as medical condition is the only psycho-sexual/mental disorder so identified that sets up as its ultimate goal the destruction of core creation-structures in the Judeo-Christian and Guyanese ethos – manhood, womanhood, sex, family, marriage.
How significant is this?