Dear Editor,
I have taken note of an increasing tendency among some commentators, both locally and internationally, to use the human rights argument as the basis for pushing for the amendment of laws to allow wider or easier practice of homosexuality and abortion.
I am concerned about this trend because I believe it is an insidious way for some to push their own views and philosophies under the guise of human rights. This reasoning pattern represents a dangerous precedent.
At present, Jamaican laws prohibit abortion and buggery -- a traditionally homosexual act. As such, the homosexual and pro-abortion lobbyists are essentially advocating for a change in law that will make their lifestyle and preferred options appear less reprehensible, since illegal acts are frowned on in civilised societies. These acts have traditionally been seen as morally abhorrent and as such the law, in its original intent, has sought to discourage what were generally considered wrong actions.
The problem with the approach of overturning laws that prohibit previously considered objectionable behaviour on the strength of advocacy and the savvy of lobby groups is, where do we stop?
What will prevent other lobby groups from requesting a change of laws on the basis of so-called human rights? What if there was the establishment of the Jamaica Association of Paedophiles (JAP) and Jamaicans in Defence of Incest (JDI); on what basis would these groups be opposed? Don't they have rights too?
Consider the fact that the consenting adult argument would not work if the two people in an incestuous relationship have passed the age of eighteen, and the paedophiles could clearly advance their "right" to have sexual relations with children under the age of consent.They could even claim they were born this way. I raise the above scenarios without frivolity or rancour.
I am simply seeking to illustrate that reversing laws that seek to uphold morals maintain the well-being and sustainability of the society cannot be determined purely by the strength of advocacy and the consistency of lobby efforts. It must be based on a general consideration of what is good for the nation and what are the more objective standards of morality. All people must be allowed human rights, but human rights must not be misused in order to gain the acceptance of "human wrongs".
Rohan Ambersley
ambersley@yahoo.com
From the closet to under the carpet
-->
I have taken note of an increasing tendency among some commentators, both locally and internationally, to use the human rights argument as the basis for pushing for the amendment of laws to allow wider or easier practice of homosexuality and abortion.
I am concerned about this trend because I believe it is an insidious way for some to push their own views and philosophies under the guise of human rights. This reasoning pattern represents a dangerous precedent.
At present, Jamaican laws prohibit abortion and buggery -- a traditionally homosexual act. As such, the homosexual and pro-abortion lobbyists are essentially advocating for a change in law that will make their lifestyle and preferred options appear less reprehensible, since illegal acts are frowned on in civilised societies. These acts have traditionally been seen as morally abhorrent and as such the law, in its original intent, has sought to discourage what were generally considered wrong actions.
The problem with the approach of overturning laws that prohibit previously considered objectionable behaviour on the strength of advocacy and the savvy of lobby groups is, where do we stop?
What will prevent other lobby groups from requesting a change of laws on the basis of so-called human rights? What if there was the establishment of the Jamaica Association of Paedophiles (JAP) and Jamaicans in Defence of Incest (JDI); on what basis would these groups be opposed? Don't they have rights too?
Consider the fact that the consenting adult argument would not work if the two people in an incestuous relationship have passed the age of eighteen, and the paedophiles could clearly advance their "right" to have sexual relations with children under the age of consent.They could even claim they were born this way. I raise the above scenarios without frivolity or rancour.
I am simply seeking to illustrate that reversing laws that seek to uphold morals maintain the well-being and sustainability of the society cannot be determined purely by the strength of advocacy and the consistency of lobby efforts. It must be based on a general consideration of what is good for the nation and what are the more objective standards of morality. All people must be allowed human rights, but human rights must not be misused in order to gain the acceptance of "human wrongs".
Rohan Ambersley
ambersley@yahoo.com
From the closet to under the carpet
-->