Oftentimes readers, articles such as this (‘A Harangue on Homos’) are
published in newspapers without the general public being exposed to
an appropriate response. The Express allows comments on all articles
but we find them unfortunately removing valid and justified
comments throughout discussions on their website. Thus, we seek to
provide the other side of the coin in our articles.
To proceed:
From reading Mr.Baldeosingh’s lengthy article, which was neither
enlightening nor academically stimulating (at least in our opinion), we
saw only one major point made, which was borrowed from someone
else’s supposed research,
“At the social level, we find a highly significant relationship between
levels of tolerance and life satisfaction.”
Let us analyze this claim by the author. Exactly what is the definition
of life satisfaction? After defining it, we will obviously achieve a
qualitative and immeasurable definition. So the question begs; what
were the indicators used to define “life satisfaction?” More than likely,
life satisfaction would have been related to per Capita income, literacy
and education, and access to healthcare (key economic development
indicators). If low income is an indication of low life satisfaction,
then we must tell all the “poor” people we know to stop being so happy
and contented and realize that their life is miserable and unfulfilled.
The author gave three broad categories of nations:



The poor nations have traditional values
The middle-income nations have modern values
The rich nations have postmodern values
Postmodern values include but are not limited to self-expression,
imagination and tolerance. The rich nations obviously have more
income per capita than the poorer nations. The rich nations therefore
have greater life satisfaction, using whatever quantitative data was
available.
Should the statement “At the social level, we find a highly significant
relationship between levels of tolerance and life satisfaction” be
interpreted as, the more tolerant a society is, the greater life
satisfaction its people will have. Or is it more accurate to say, that as
societies become richer, they no longer feel a need to stick to
traditional or modern values, but seeks other freedoms and
indulgences, ultimately leading to an increase in tolerance. Which
came first, the chicken or the egg; the tolerance or the supposed life
satisfaction?
“In fact, societies which don’t discriminate against gays are usually
societies where women have equal rights”
What exactly are equal rights? Is a man and a woman equal? In the
strictest biological definition, the answer will be a resounding NO. Of
course if we say men and women are not equal, the first thing that will
come to 95% of the people is that we are saying women are beneath
men however we laugh at that presumption. Women and men have
different needs and thus deserve rights in accordance with their needs,
and when their need coincides, their rights should also coincide. In
Trinidad and Tobago a female parent is entitled to three months
maternity leave, while a male parent may be allowed a week off in
paternity leave. This is obviously discriminatory against male parents,
but it is just in accordance with the individual needs.
What is an objective way of deciding which countries grant women
equal rights? I think we can all agree that if a country allows a woman
to become its head of state then there should be equal rights among
the sexes. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Trinidad and Tobago and
Jamaica have at one time or the other elected or appointed female
heads of state or government. Yet in these countries they all have strict
anti homosexuality laws and have relatively high levels of intolerance.
The United States affords “equal rights” to males and females, but
never had a female head of state. This points that there are many other
countries with “equal rights” that are intolerant towards
homosexuality.
Historically, in ancient Greece, homosexuality was prevalent and
viewed as more honourable than heterosexuality (your wife was for
reproduction not pleasure). At the same time, were women afforded
equal rights. No they were not. Only some women had access to an
education, and that access was only limited.
We understand that all of us descended from a group that was
discriminated against at one point in time. However, we ask this
question, where is the line drawn by what is and what should
be sexually acceptable behaviour? Will those in favour of
homosexuality be equally as tolerant to the next evolution of sexual
behaviour, be it bestiality, incest or another unknown action? Or will
they view this action as a degradation of society?
Abu Sawdah
YSWS Team