JUSTIN DeFreitas ends his rebuttal of my studied proposal that “Homosexuality portends the fall of modern civilization” (KN May 25th) by urging me to “lighten up … Gay folks are just an acorn … The sky is not falling” (“The Gay Armageddon – The end is nigh?” GC May 27th).

First of all, I am no Chicken Little. Now, to his arguments:

(1) Homosexual couples can have babies too. I agree with him; but that was not the point I was making. Within the framework established by Evolutionary Biology, homosexual couples cannot of themselves naturally reproduce. In a little thought experiment, I sought to show the futility of their “marriage” and the statement Nature has made about the matter. Irrespective of what technology may provide, the question was, “What is the natural law for mating?”

(2) Intimacy is an expression of attraction and not just for procreation. I agree with him too; but that again was not my point. During the process of self-realisation, we come to learn the functions of our body parts and realise their complementary nature to those of the opposite sex within the sphere of reproduction. No biologist disputes this. The attempt to expose genitalia to that which does not complement them is therefore uncalled for.

Where the problem originates is not in the genitalia of course, but in the mind, driven by the desire for pleasure, seemingly at any cost for some. Sex has in this transcended the boundaries of common sense into vice; a thrust that, for homosexuals especially, precludes any consideration of the laws of bodily function. Irrespective of the reason for intimacy therefore, the question was, “In mating, where is the natural complement to one’s genitalia?”

(3) My “obvious belief that homosexuality can become widespread.” That is Mr. DeFreitas’ inference. I don’t subscribe to the view that “it will become a common practice” upon legal recognition; but, as I wrote, its “popular acceptance will become conspicuous.” I do not wish to, nor ever will, harass “a defenceless minority with baseless accusations of human annihilation,” with “over the top” or “uncool” assertions. What I do see is the gay rights activists insisting on the legal redefinition of marriage not by majority consensus (derived from the numbers who are heterosexual) but by an imposition made imperative by a vocal minority: them. And even this, I have said they should have as “Human Beings.”

(4) The “end.” Maybe if I were to give a local analogy, Mr. DeFreitas would understand my train of thought.

It is like finding an increasingly restless Guyanese population willing to emigrate for which no cause could be found in our plants, animals, buildings or the air we breathe. Only when we “look at the social fabric” however, we find the reason: a pervasive feeling of futility about local life. Don’t allow the emigration, and the state runs afoul of its democratic principles; allow it and what ensues is a reversal of economic progress.

Similarly, we are faced with a critical mass of homosexuals clamouring to be “married.” Their openness, I’m sure he would agree with me, is symptomatic of a dramatic shift in culture that tends towards a more permissive society; a drift reminiscent of the type expounded upon in Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, summarized neatly in the Wikipedia article about the book.

Since modern civilisation is global and all encompassing, it stands to reason that the decline and fall of it involves the refutation of western European mores and a reorientation of the axis of first economic and then political power. If history is any guide, moral decadence and unnatural practices, natural disasters serving as catalyst, only lead to change (ref: The French Revolution). Whatever happens after that is anybody’s guess. The Bible has much to say about the matter, but Mr. DeFreitas assures me that it is “not applicable to the majority of people, including [himself]” and that he “will ignore” its word.

In summary, I repeat my previous conclusion that, “Democratically electing to recognize the rights of intimate association between consenting gays and lesbians is reflective of a commendable refutation of minority discrimination; but it is in this Trojan horse of civilized response, sadly, that the scrolls announcing the end of time are being delivered.”

This is the end of the matter, except one interesting point he inserted that “in [his] version of the Bible it isn’t love that forces Jesus to come a second time.” He reads, but he doesn’t understand apparently.
MARK A.C. BLAIR