THERE IS a distinction between rights and privileges which infringes on other people's rights that the gay community does not ­ or chooses not to ­ grasp.

Everybody, including the homosexual male or female, has the right to life and personal safety and no one has the right to harm another person who is not in some way physically threatening them or someone else. In addition, everybody has the right to privacy and hence no one should intrude on someone's private space in order to determine if 'such-an-such' is really 'that.'

However, the gay community ­ especially the men, it would appear ­ are fighting for 'rights' that simply infringe on other people's rights. For example, there was that American guy who wanted to become a scout leader. I would expect that a parent has the right for their son not to be led off on an overnight camping trip by a man who has declared himself a homosexual.

Lord knows the closet ones in the Catholic Church have done enough damage.

Then there is the right to adopt children. By virtue of their lifestyle choice, homosexuals have ruled themselves out of the reproductive cycle. It may be argued that a child stands a much better chance with two same sex parents ­ but then, you can't have two same-sex parents, can you?

A child deserves parents. Two persons of the same gender do not qualify.

Then there is marriage. When two persons get married, they qualify for certain benefits paid for from the public (read taxpayer, read me) purse. For example, in Jamaica there are pension benefits; in other countries there are housing and other benefits which accrue to spouses. In other words, the taxpayer will be asked ­ no, forced ­ to support a lifestyle choice that he or she is against.

Then there are the marches. In this country, while there may be (often vulgar) displays of sexuality, oftentimes real intimacy, down to the holding of hands, is a rarity (I will refrain from playing on rare). The homosexual community, I believe, wants the right to flaunt their lifestyle in everybody else's faces.

It is this knee-jerk reaction when you are doing something that is just not on. You either flaunt it like Elton John or conceal it like George Michael. The flaunting is an overcompensation for a guilt which cannot be erased, even with huge marches in pink tights and other garish outfits.

The guilt lies not in the finger of the accuser, but the conscience of the perpetrator.

But what about my rights, in this scenario? What about my right for my children not to be exposed at a young, impressionable age to a homosexual lifestyle?

Because when you get right down to it, the objective is to gain acceptance and, with such acceptance, a spreading of homosexuality.

Hip hip hooray put it pon display

Me no response fi public nor closet gay

­ Buju Banton

If two adults ­ note, adults ­ of the same gender choose to indulge in sexual activity in private ­ note, in private ­ no skin off my nose (or anywhere else). Where that right to private sexual choice becomes an attempt to foist such behaviour on me and my family, we are going to have a problem and I believe I am well within my rights to take firm action against same.

Like getting rid of the cable TV service in my home, or at least some channels. I have flipped through too many channels in the broad, middle day and seen two men or two women kissing to feel comfortable with it (and they almost show black people as thugs, hos or in subservient roles). And that does not even encompass the nights, with Queer As Folk and Oz.

By the way, for those parents who missed it, Nickelodeon plans to develop a programme in which the 'parents' of a particular child are of the same gender. Coming soon to a TV set in your home.

Lastly, there has been this undercurrent of trying to equate gay rights with Black people's rights. Now that is really offensive. For the life of me, I cannot see how having a relationship with someone of the same sex is some huge political statement.

At this point I could take a cop-out by saying that I have homosexual friends, but I will not.

The Jamaican term for a male homosexual seems to be particularly offensive to the gay community. I cannot fathom the complaint, as I have no problem with someone calling me the female equivalent-man.

It is not the name that is the problem; it is the similar gender of plug and socket.

Melville Cooke is a freelance writer.