Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter captioned, `Imagery of agreement to this sexual confusion,’ by Maria Rodrigues published in the Stabroek News on January 15, 2018. There are a few things I have taken issue with and will attempt to lay out my counter argument as plainly as possible. First and foremost SASOD is an organisation that is constantly attacked because they simply promote equal rights for minority individuals. I will not do them the disservice of highlighting anything else since that is the essence of what they do. Ms. Rodrigues implies, since prominent politicians (both opposition and government) were photographed together with a SASOD representative, this somehow translates to promoting confusion among children with regards to their sexual identity. Further implying; association with people who are different automatically means you too are condoning this ‘difference.’ This is a false and baseless observation. Politicians should be commended for their association in support of minorities.
The writer goes on to chastise the two female politicians for their association and ‘condoning,’ of immoral actions of persons with varying sexual orientation. The immorality of this statement is not lost on me, since the writer of this letter has the self-imposed authority on what constitutes morality. Also, why are politicians held to this esteem of being role models – when perhaps they are the worse suited candidates for the job? Why then should persons place the burden of “role-models” on politicians, why leave the influence of your children’s minds on that of an outsider?
The final sentiment in the letter calls for ‘social concerns’ to be directed to amply qualified people, such as leaders of the church. Further stating that church and state must be a necessary feature to develop a country. The horror of that sentiment is akin to the dark ages where persecution of ‘different people’ was rampant. If history is any indication, the church and state ought to have no involvement. The heart of politicians and religious leaders share a commonality – that of being infinitely human. With that, comes the propensity for good and evil. There is no assurance that one will act according to the mandate of his/her office. So then, why would you direct a ‘social issue’ to the same people who are obviously intolerant of said ‘social issue?’ Where is the fairness in that?
As is Ms. Rodrigues’ right, it is also my right to remind Guyanese that we are a secular society not driven by religious dispositions, but first and foremost we are driven by having regard for our fellow citizen. We cannot measure one group of people according to the tenets of another group’s religion. To do so would not only mean religious intolerance but human rights intolerance. We must always fight against communal divisiveness and bigotry.
Yours faithfully,
Cassandra Persaud
