It is quite understandable why the Pastor is upset about Darwinius masillae being the missing link; earlier he had told the nation that he believes the missing link is a mermaid. So the scientific investigation regarding the Ida fossil is just a bothersome humbug to Pastor Singh’s ground breaking research on mermaids. Darn those scientists!

But that is enough with Pastor Singh’s comedic act. Let’s turn instead to Mark A. C. Blair, a serious religious writer who clearly has thoughtful opinions. I’m pleased that he agreed with so many of the things I said. His letter “What is the natural law for mating?” published in both the Guyana Chronicle and the Kaieteur News makes critically important points that apply to both him and I, but do not apply to gay persons and neither of us has the right to impose our views on such folks.

I have identified the point where Mr. Blair and I diverge. It seems to him that homosexual acts are so abhorrent that it cannot be natural; he says these acts are “biologically disturbing” as the tools involved are not “complementary”. I cannot sanction this as I have no first-hand knowledge of the “operation”, but I would think that gay people would disagree.

Anyway, as these acts are so unnatural, Mr. Blair is forced to conclude that it comes from a misguided mind. It is uncontrolled lust yearning for satisfaction irrespective of cost; it crosses the “boundaries of common sense” and dismisses the right reasons for genitalia as baby making apparatuses.

Gay intimacy is just wanton hedonism, practiced by those seeking only unbridled sensual pleasures, Mr. Blair seems to think. And because these “unnatural” acts do not make babies, marriage is an exercise in futility. Gay folks should not want to be married as their unions do not “naturally” provide children. I wonder then, if the standard for marriage is natural child-bearing, should infertile heterosexual couples file for divorce?

I don’t believe gay marriage is about uncontrolled sexual lust. If that’s the case, gay people wouldn’t want to be hitched to a single spouse. Also, I’ve seen news footage of some of these weddings and I must confess, these are some of the ugliest couples I’ve ever seen so I doubt its lust that’s driving the union.

Many gay couples tying the knot were over fifty years of age and had been together for decades. As most heterosexual couples know, in a relationship lust lasts an average of three years, after that it’s about companionship. I think, especially for those older gay couples, lust is just a like a foreign word.

These days many gay couples are raising families, in numerous instances, much better than heterosexual couples with drug and alcohol problems or abusive husbands and child molesting step-fathers and so on.

“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?’” Mr. Blair said. In today’s world the definition of “natural” has been widened. An infertile heterosexual couple seeking the wide range of fertility options available to them is not being unnatural. Medical science, practiced on the basis of natural human intellect is a natural act. We cannot dismiss reproductive technology as being unnatural.

People define what is natural and so “natural law” changes as time progresses. Natural law, as defined by the majority, was used to impose slavery but now that law is abolished; the law which said that black people are naturally three fifths of person was recognized as immoral; the law which said it is unnatural for a black woman and white man to marry is gone, and thankfully so. Sure “evolutionary biology” did not equip gay couples with complementary apparatuses to reproduce, but natural human intellect compensates in this regards and that is in fact, the “statement Nature has made about the matter”.

Sometimes, the majority view can infringe on the inherent rights of a minority. When this happens, the State and/or the Courts of Law must intercede. The majority of white slave owners did not want to abolish slavery. Should we have respected their majority “consensus” and dismiss the immoral “imperative” of slavery?

The thoughtful Mr. Blair concedes that gay people should have equal rights as “Human Beings”. But still he worries the right of marriage, or legal recognition will make “popular acceptance” become conspicuous.

Mr. Blair also seems to resent “gay rights” activists insistence on the legal redefinition of marriage.” But I don’t think this is what is happening. No-one is trying to redefine marriage; gay people are only insisting that they be “equally” included. And we all believe in genuine equality, don’t we Mr. Blair, not just equality as defined by the majority’s view because, as we have seen, the majority’s view can sometimes be a violation of natural law.
JUSTIN de FREITAS