Should there be such a thing as ‘Right to Homosexuality’?
Truly, the matters of homosexuality are not a law’s business but a business of the heart, but then, what if we approach it from public health point of view? As we all know, sometimes public health policies are enforced by government action and sanctions imposed on defaulters. This is still justifiable if the policy is against a threat that has been evidenced to be a public risk; the policy is preventing the worst from happening by implementing a restriction against a risky or dangerous behavior.
READ THIS: Is legal law against homosexuality a necessity in Uganda?
For homosexuals, much research has shown that they are prone to infections like HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases more than others. Also, these guys have proved to be a threat to children who grow up in their families. Their relationships are usually not long lasting and they are rarely faithful to their partners. All these constraints end up affecting people’s economy, the country’s expenditure on infectious diseases and cultural and social life of others and themselves. Even though so many studies have also argued that the above disadvantages are not true, at least nothing new has been pointed out as a good advantage of being a homosexual. In other words, the bad effects outweigh the good effects.
According to Jennings (2002), a person’s right can be overridden if it is seen as being harmful to the person or the neighbors. Also, if the person’s autonomy would bring more harm than good, then it can be ignored for a moment or forever. From that perspective, I do not think homosexuals deserve a right to go on with their choice. I am aware of the right to practice sexual orientation, but that is valid if no one is hurt in the process. But is it true that no one is hurt in homosexuality? Research reveals that homosexuals themselves are at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Besides, If not the people doing it (the homosexuals), the society suffers their actions by spending a lot on their destruction, money that should have taken care of something else.
What is Homosexuality?
This is a sexual orientation whereby people have devoted relationships and love feelings towards fellow same sex persons. While some studies have revealed that it is a genetically determined, so many others say that it is Learnt and adopted. Also, some people have come to see homosexuals as insane people, so many studies have opposed this. Recent studies reveal that there is no such thing as ‘gay gene’ (see here, here and here), many more genes and environment play role. Whatever the truth is, homosexuality remains undesirable in many societies across the globe.
In theology, we say that even though we are born with the nature of sinning, we cannot be let free because it is part of our being; something must be done about it. Whether homosexuality is genetically determined or not, whether its practitioners are insane or sober, we cannot encourage it in any way. What is clear is that it is harmful to both the homosexuals themselves and the public.
Do not say that there is so much that is harmful in the same way, we are on homosexuality now.
I am blessed that i have studied the Nuffield ladder of intervention, 2007. According to this ladder, we first do nothing and let people make their choices. If they still make wrong or harmful choices, we provide them with information regarding what they are deciding to do. If they still cannot change, we enable choices by providing limited options. If still they choose the wrong side, we change the default policy so as to attack them smoothly. If this cannot work, we guide choice through incentives, and then through disincentives, and then limiting choices and finally eliminating choices.
I am not sure where we have reached with homosexuals. But if the rest have continuously failed, then i think we need to move up the ladder, to limiting options and eliminating choices!
Fortunately, Griffiths and C. West (2015) proposed an alternative ladder that involves serious interventions. In their argument, Nuffield ladder proposes inaction to maximize autonomy and this, according to them, is not good. Instead, they suggest, a balanced ladder should have interventions while maximizing autonomy. We will have time for these debates and see which one is best for homosexuality. Can we act and still maintain people’s autonomy or even improve it? Griffiths and C. West believe so!
SUMMARY: There is no (or there should be no) such a thing as right to homosexuality. The right to homosexuality implies the behavior isn’t harmful to practitioners and societies around, which is untrue. However, open torture and imprisonment of homosexuals is or should not be an option as well.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Can a degree of stigmatization help to deal with undesirable behaviors, for example, homosexuality without negative side-effects?
READ THIS: Does Stigmatization have any silver lining?