Abstinence and Fornication
Barbados
Advocate, February 21, 2005
By Jeff Cumberbatch
The recent decision by a relatively large number of young
persons to swear publicly abstinence from sex (un)til marriage is an
interesting one. Of course, the instinctive reaction will be to praise this as
a virtuous decision, especially since such abstinence, apart from being a
panacea for HIV infection and, indeed any sexually transmitted disease, also
serves the holier function of preventing commission of the sin of fornication
by these young people. In fact, if I am to judge from the blurb accompanying
the event, it is the latter consideration which seems to assume pre-eminence.
This is not surprising, given that those behind the idea are Christians, and
in the local sense of that word to boot. The concept is purported to be based
on the allegedly successful Ugandan strategy to combat HIV/AIDS known by the
abbreviation “ABC”—abstain, be faithful and condomise. It is not clear
to this writer why the success of a three-part strategy should be attributed
to only one of its elements, but I have my suspicions. My interpretation of
the ABC stratagem is that while abstinence is the absolute fail-safe response;
in the event that human fallibility does not permit this, then one should be
faithful to one’s partner; and should this prove impractical, recourse
should be had to a condom. It is easy to understand the local interpretation
of abstinence as an end in itself but, given the context in which the slogan
originated—a Uganda beseiged by rampant HIV infection rates as a result of
casual sex—it would be a cause for surprise if abstinence were the sole or
even principal component of the initiative. But it is a sexy (ha!) notion. The
condom is not kosher with some religious denominations, given its original
history as a birth control device. And fidelity is OK for some only in the
environment of a marital union. Outside of that, remaining faithful to one’s
partner is still fornication and egregiously sinful, no matter what the Family
Law Act might say.
So it was ironic to hear those of earlier generations
applaud the resolution of these youths. For from my critical observation,
abstinence does not seem to have been A Big Thing in these parts in earlier
times, what with a multiplicity of children born out of wedlock to adolescent
mothers.
But is abstinence all it has been cracked up to be? I
have already reported in this space on studies which have established those
who view condom use as antithetical to, as opposed to an alternative to,
abstinence, were more likely to indulge in unprotected sex than those who
condomised when circumstances compelled a betrayal of their vows. This makes
sense. So perhaps all three aspects of the strategy should be stressed as an
entirety rather than as severable parts. In other words, abstinence or be
faithful or condomise. In the battle against HIV/ AIDS practicality is likely
to count far more than acultural, anomalous ideals. I wish the youngsters
well.
The obverse of abstinence for unmarried couples is
fornication, a sin which equates biblically with whoremongering, deceit,
idolatry, envy, male homosexuality and adultery, inter alia. Not locally
however. Nor is it even illegal here, an actuality which lends further
credence to the argument that we sometimes use the Bible as a buffet item, to
condemn that which we dislike according to its terms and, conveniently, to
ignore or to rationalise what is contrary to its teachings but which has
become culturally acceptable. One is thus unlikely to hear at anytime soon,
calls for the criminalisation of fornication, though I suppose that if it had
been made illegal by legislation in the 19th century, any present suggestion
of its legalisation would have been met with prophecies of damnation for this
fair land. Surely Christian contributions to legislative reform ought to be
based on more than statutory accidents.
Fornication is, however, a crime in some states in the
USA. It is, as one would expect, more honoured in its breach than in its
observance, and is akin to those archaic criminal laws often the subject of
ridicule. Examples would include wearing a hat on Tuesdays after six pm or
selling ice cream while not wearing socks. These are, to my best knowledge,
fictitious, but you get my drift. It was inevitable therefore that the
constitutional validity of such a law as that criminalising fornication would
be called into question. And especially so after the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence
v. Texas which had held that homosexual acts between consulting adult
males in private are protected by the right to privacy and that to criminalise
such conduct only between those of the same sex would offend substantive due
process. Otherwise put, it would take away a persons rights without there
being a justifiable reason, such as the likelihood of causing harm to others,
for doing so.
According to that decision, the Constitution protects the
right of adult individuals to conduct consensual personal relationships in the
confines of their homes and their own private lives. Not even a longstanding
view that a practice is immoral is a sufficient justification for prohibiting
such conduct. Next week, I’ll tell you about a fornication case in Virginia,
in the news most recently for suggesting a law banning the wearing of trousers
which permit one’s underwear to be seen!
(Jeff Cumberbatch is a law consultant and educator.)
[Home] [Editorials]
[Barbados]
[World]
