THE article ‘Varying sexual identities’ which appeared in the Sunday Observer on August 2, 2015, which sought to emancipate our minds and recommended more tolerance of the diversities existing among us in our personalities, culture, religions, ethnicity, ideology, and gender identity, expectedly invoked many comments in support of tolerance as well as others portraying intolerance along the discriminatory lines of sexual orientation. Invariably, those in opposition to tolerance invoked the Bible as the source for their intolerance, if not venom and hatred.

Whilst some persons commented that intolerance can only be broken down through information, education and conversation, and that some professed ‘faith-based’ persons try to negate any arguments against their own interpretation of the scriptures, others unfortunately made very bigoted comments and ostensibly justified their position by appeals to emotionalism or their personal reference points regarding evil, the devil, the ‘serpent’, and sin. These persons, however, did not qualify how or why this supposed ‘sin’ was different from the other sins mentioned in the Bible, and why they were vehemently focusing on one ‘sin’ rather than all.

Personalisation

The reasons for some persons singling out a person’s sexual orientation from the many other ways in which we are very diverse, invariably borders on matters of a personal nature. Whenever faced by matters which we find challenging, we often ‘personalise’ the matter in our reaction (how would that feel?).

If we enter a hospital’s emergency department and see someone with a partially severed arm bleeding profusely, in our immediate response our mind instinctively internalises and personalises the issue. We ‘project’ ourselves into the issue. We think – how would I feel if it was my arm hanging down partially ‘cut off’ like that, and that thought immediately begins to make us feel weak and faint.

Many persons have the same psychological reaction of internalisation/personalisation when they think of homosexuality, hence their predictable response whenever the issue comes up. They feel personally abhorred, and so feel instinctively to ‘hit out’. Others, however, are able to differentiate themselves from that ‘personalisation’, just as doctors in the emergency room can respond to trauma and bleeding without ‘personalisation.’ We, therefore, have to be aware of the matter of internalisation and thought ‘personalisation’ when persons respond to many issues that challenge them, and be tolerant also of their responses.

Sexual attraction and orientation

On the matter of homosexuality,

bi-sexuality and trans-gender issues, some persons who ‘personalise’ the issue will then seek to justify their reflex responses to the matter. They will not tell you about their personal reactions in the matter. Invariably, they will seek to use justifications that are beyond their own frame of reference, and so may cloak the issue with narrowly selected passages from the Bible as the source of vilification, without the larger context of interpretation and meaning. This explains the strong vehemence some persons have in their approach to this specific subject, whilst not carrying the same interest or vehemence for others.

In all societies, whether in the Caribbean or elsewhere, faith-based persons live in a secular world where Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and other religious beliefs contend, and many persons do not use the Bible as the source of reference for their lives. We must also be cognizant that not all persons use a religious ‘prism’ to inform their values or guide their decision-making in life. Are such persons to be condemned? In a just society, all persons have a right to exist equally as much as faith-based persons, and they do their civic duty of contributing taxes, helping others in distress, and generally contributing positively to society as all good persons are wont to do. To single persons out for any special type of attention or ridicule only because of their sexual persuasion is to treat them unfairly, and in any democratic state such acts would be classified as injustice.

Christian duty

Those of us with Christian beliefs should remind others that, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ commanded us to love all persons. No exemption to that duty was made. Jesus demonstrated his compassion for the prostitute, the leper, and all persons with whom he came into contact. We are, therefore, being disingenuous if we use quotations such as the multiplicity of ‘sins’ that were reported in Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament in order to supersede the work of Jesus, who came to move all persons towards a new dispensation. It is high time that we all think and reason honestly and deeply, and so emancipate our minds.

Derrick Aarons MD, PhD is a consultant bioethicist/family physician, a specialist in ethical issues in medicine, the life sciences and research, and is the ethicist at the Caribbean Public Health Agency – CARPHA. (The views expressed here are not written on behalf of CARPHA)