The ruling of the Trinidad and Tobago high court that laws criminalizing buggery are unconstitutional, has left many wondering about its implication for Jamaica’s buggery law and others more convinced than ever that the law is an ass (no pun intended).

Although I identify with the church and believe that what is described as ‘anal sex’ is abnormal and contrary to God’s laws, I would have little to no concern if the law was repealed, if I were persuaded that decriminalization was the LGBT lobby’s ultimate objective.

I firmly believe that consenting adults should face the consequences of their actions and sodomy committed against non-consenting adults and children can be prosecuted under existing laws dealing with offences against the person.

However, statements attributed to LGBT activists and the reality seen in supposedly ‘developed’ countries, show that getting the law repealed is the first rung on a ladder that they hope will culminate in the recognition of same-sex marriage, teaching of homosexuality in schools as normal and the criminalizing of any speech even suggesting homosexuality is a sin or abnormal.

In my mind, the objectives of the LGBT activists are inconsistent with the established norms of a democracy.  A basic principle of a democracy is the will of the majority should prevail while protecting the rights of the minority.

If the LGBT community has their way, we will have a situation where the will of the minority prevail at the expense of the majority. This situation has been described as the ‘tyranny of the minority’.

I do not support discrimination against members of the LGBT community and neither does the Church.  However, I also do not support any attempts, as seen in ‘developed’ countries, to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of conscience directed primarily at the Christian community.

I also believe that, in a democracy, changes to customs and laws that will significantly change the way societies and countries are organized, should be put to the people in a referendum. It is undemocratic for an individual (even a high court judge) or small group of individuals to take decisions that fundamentally change societal norms. 

Additionally, there is no such thing as a homogenous culture.  Every country has its own culture and no country or group of countries should have the right, through military or economic might, to impose their values on a sovereign State.

 Only in the most extreme cases of the denial of universally accepted human rights should the international community seek to interfere with a country’s right to develop and maintain its own culture.

Jamaica should stand her ground and resist all attempts by cultural bullies to foist their culture on us.