Saturday, June 27, 2009

A Response To Vikram Seth's Open Letter

Dear Editor,

I refer to Vickram Seth’s “open letter” and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Copies are being sent to Amartya Sen, Vickram Seth and as many others of the signatories of their “open letter” as possible, and the organizations they represent.

It is the truth that sets persons free.

Seth and Sen ignore the evidence in law reviews that homosexual and bisexual activity is medically, socially and personally destructive, and that the defence of these behaviours has usually meant that detractors are silenced, and that statistical, medical, legal and academic/research evidence is just simply ignored. There is another, more sinister outcome possible for parliamentary democracy in India, adequately alluded to by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime!" ( ).

The “open letter” by Seth et al, and the “support” by Sen, is couched in the vague, amorphous, and emotion-dripping syrup of the “rights” arguments, and ignores the plea by at least one research scientist that science, not emotion, should inform the debate.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”; Hamilton Press; 1996) confides that in conference with groups like Seth’s and Sen’s - the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. I referred to this anomaly in the online initial critique of Arif Bulkan's “National Assessment on HIV/AIDS Human Rights, Law and Ethics in Guyana” ( ) when pondering the absence of a doctor's opinion from the 'assessment' in the Guyana context.

There is a therefore a criminal irresponsibility in Seth’s and Sen’s refusal to address the Indian epidemic of HIV/AIDS from standard epidemiological terms of reference, as medical doctors must, instead opting for a 'rights-based' point of view.

There is not a single medical doctor in the entourage that “supports” Seth’s “open letter”. If there was, they took great pains to hide the fact, and that alone bespeaks of a similar degree of criminal irresponsibility. SASOD, like Seth, has by now achieved competence in the art of propaganda, and carefully pads local advocacy for Seth’s position with the words “… the other signatories come from diverse walks of life, and include academics, public servants, politicians, lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social activists and business people.” In the context of the worldwide and Indian epidemics of HIV/AIDS, this is tantamount to criminal negligence and mischief in leading their “flock” astray.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that Seth and Sen must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “sexual orientation” argument.

● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's HIV report (page 5 of the online critique, or e-mail for copies).

● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% '. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

See pages 7-8 in the online article "Annex A: An initial Critique of the National Assessment" at the URL: www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics/national_assessment.pdf for Roger Magnuson’s treatment of the legal pitfalls and perils that accompany “sexual orientation” considerations. There is fertile ground here for legal rebuttal to Seth’s deception.

The legal issues should at the very least not displace prudent medical or epidemiological responses. That would be irresponsible in the face of an epidemic, one indicator for Guyana being the report in the Kaieteur News of October 24th 2004 advising that eight out of every ten blood-donors in Region Three (one of 10 administrative districts in Guyana) are tested positive for HIV. What are the facts for India?

Guyana is therefore in the middle of an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and it would be safe to say that with a population of about 750,000, a total infection episode would be imminent if the solid protection provided by current laws were laid aside as people like SASOD and Seth advocate. Guyana, Suriname and Haiti share the highest levels of seroprevalence in the region, similar to levels in Southern Africa.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier have dealt conclusively with the attendant issues in the article “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right” at . Rabbi Eidensohn’s critique of the Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Act (SONDA) outlines the perilous intrigue of deception we court in democracies as we are seduced and hoodwinked by gay militancy ( ). Readers should also peruse the article entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “. SASOD’s stated intention in its letter to have “joined with other interest groups to call for the urgent reform of the legislation to improve the access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially child victims” is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical in the extreme.
I should now voice some scholarly concern that SASOD’s, and Seth’s, experience in research in this area did not mandate a comment on any of the numerous medical issues and commentaries that are available on the subject. For example, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement":( ; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002 ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists in the Caribbean and India.

"....Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Perhaps the most interesting point in the SASOD letter to Stabroek News is the outright confession that their target is the repeal of “sodomy laws”. In the past, they have delicately sidestepped this claim, and Dr. Marcus Day made an abortive attempt on their behalf to fashion an argument that “homosexual men don’t necessarily commit sodomy”. He quickly withdrew after being challenged. As it was then, this argument remains specious and puerile, and does not reflect serious scholarship. Sodomy defines homosexuality, and a liberal sexual environment ensures bisexual crossover and acceptance in the heterosexual population, particularly where education on sexual issues is deficient or biased in favour of gay militancy.

Regarding anal intercourse, either heterosexual or homosexual, Vickram Seth and Amartya Sen should appreciate and promote as fact to both populations that anal intercourse must be condemned for what it is, a medically dangerous activity that happens to facilitate the most virulent transmission of HIV, and that is condemned by no less a person than the Surgeon General of the USA:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al has gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...."

Dr Day's (and now SASOD, Seth’s and Sen’s) avoidance of these facts has in the past been particularly disturbing, as is his deferral on the issue that sodomy defines homosexuality, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to willfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. As a responsible research scientist, the only question that should occupy Dr. Day's mind at this time is: What are the facts for Guyana? India?

Surely, even if 50% of a deviant population engages in a disease-ridden activity we should consider the medical and social implications with the seriousness it deserves.

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Vikram Seth’s arguments:

"But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being"

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( ). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. Seth needs no “facts” for his “open” letter. He uses his name, star power, and his followers’ gullibility!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series:

"So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia."

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
September 26, 2006

No comments:

Post a Comment