The second group, in my opinion, is the Guardian’s third group populated by those, in the Guardian’s words, see homosexuality as “a biological condition, which is as perfectly normal as heterosexual orientation”. They are the people who created the phantom 'group one' of the Guardian’s analysis, otherwise known as the homophobes, that is, those who want homosexuals eliminated, violently, if necessary! The gay lobby has perfected this blackmail and used it successfully in a number of places. It must not be allowed to succeed here. Prescription of prison terms for anti-social behaviours are intended to deter and correct and do not necessarily result from hatred.
As every one interested in the subject would have noticed, the gay ‘rights’ debate has tended to elicit more heat than light. That has been the situation almost everywhere and Nigeria wasn’t going to be an exception. That is why interventions such as that of the Guardian newspaper through its March 23, 2009 editorial comment titled; “Homosexuality and the Lawmakers” must be seen as a welcome development.
It is welcome because, it did attempt to throw some light into the debate with its review of the basic arguments for and against the anti-same-sex marriage bill being considered by the National Assembly. The newspaper also identified three broad tendencies on the subject among Nigerians. In one group are “many Nigerian Christians and Moslems” who “the mere mention of homosexuality is guaranteed to drive up the wall in revulsion”. A second group consists of “others, somewhat tolerant who are inclined to look at the phenomenon as a form of benign affliction from which the victims can be rescued” who therefore believe that “homosexuals and lesbians should be managed until they return to the path of rectitude.” The third group is peopled by “others” for whom “homosexuality is not a stigma but a biological condition, which is as perfectly normal as heterosexual orientation”.
This analysis is only partly correct. In reality there are only two groups. From years of engaging with the subject, one has come to realise that the Christian community’s revulsion for homosexuality stems from the position identified by the Guardian and attributed to a certain second group. Namely, that homosexuality is an “affliction from which the victims can be rescued.” In other words, the first and second groups identified by the Guardian actually belong together hating the sin of homosexuality, but loving the sinner and willing to help nurture the sinner back to the path of “rectitude”.
The second group, in my opinion, is the Guardian’s third group populated by those, in the Guardian’s words, see homosexuality as “a biological condition, which is as perfectly normal as heterosexual orientation”. They are the people who created the phantom 'group one' of the Guardian’s analysis, otherwise known as the homophobes, that is, those who want homosexuals eliminated, violently, if necessary! The gay lobby has perfected this blackmail and used it successfully in a number of places. It must not be allowed to succeed here. Prescription of prison terms for anti-social behaviours are intended to deter and correct and do not necessarily result from hatred.
The editorial was however spot on when it wrote: “The problem with Nigerians is that we are all too eager to copy the latest fads from the western world. Not every product from the West is good and the well-heeled homosexual lobby is one such example. We must come to look at the issue of same sex relationships from the prism of our culture and religion. For the African, the idea that a man can be married to a man or a woman to a woman is anathema. The culture of marriage is predicated on the union between a man and a woman and all our traditional practices and normative values regarding marriage are based on the assumption that the other member is of the opposite sex.”
It was also correct to say that “African parents prepare their children from birth through adolescence for marriage to the opposite sex. Too many things will be upset were it possible to upturn age-old customs and practices…Africans have a right to say 'no' to a movement whose ultimate outcome will be the destruction of the family. Homosexuals are claiming that men can marry themselves. If everyone followed their example, would they have even been born? Looking at the debate, we conclude that in the short run both parties cannot be reconciled without grave injuries being done to either of them. ”
One cannot also fault the newspaper’s take on the human rights angle to the debate: “Those who argue that opposition to homosexuality amounts to a violation of universal human rights, may well need to realise that the dislike of homosexuality is not inconsistent with the observance of human rights. Nigerian homosexuals are not pilloried for being gay. They have a choice: they can marry members of the opposite sex or stay single…”
Implicit in this, though is an acceptance of the lie of the enemy that there are truly people who are by nature, gay; made homosexual by God, the creator. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not so; particularly with the increasing number of people who have successfully fought same-sex attraction. Newspapers ought to join in holding out homosexuality as the perversion that it is rather than facetiously grant them recognition and then admonish as the Guardian did that “they only draw unfavourable attention to themselves when they threaten the safety and security of the majority.”
But easily the most worrisome part of the editorial is its conclusion: “Since sodomy is already criminalised in Nigeria, we wonder whether the National Assembly is utilising its time optimally by focusing on homosexuality when the majority of our people are suffering from hunger, lack of access to water and disease. Moreover, as pointed out by the gay lobbyists, same sex marriage is not a common social practice in Nigeria therefore legislating against it is redundant and can only further stigmatise the sexual minority. Perhaps the National Assembly should be spending its time on real issues that impact on the lives of long-suffering Nigerians.”
First, this conclusion seems to dismiss the bill currently before the House of Representatives as merely intended to “criminalise” sodomy. It goes beyond that. For one, it even reduces the penalty from 14 years to five, making it less punitive than the provisions of the Criminal Code! For another, if passed, it will send a strong signal to the international gay lobby that the Nigerian society is not about to buy into their lie. Most importantly, it will forestall the likelihood of a powerful, rich lobby coming through the backdoor to have the current law taken of the statute book on the pretext of reviewing “colonial laws.”
The second and, for me, more critical issue raised by the conclusion is what I see as “the price of fish syndrome.” First the Guardian wonders: “whether the National Assembly is utilising its time optimally by focusing on homosexuality when the majority of our people are suffering from hunger, lack of access to water and disease.” And when it stopped wondering went on to advise: “Perhaps the National Assembly should be spending its time on real issues that impact on the lives of long-suffering Nigerians.”
It’s a subject, I have addressed in this column before and some of the things I wrote then might bear repetition here.
In “Obama, Goose Bumps and Nigeria (2)” (September 14, 2008), I pointed out that if we are to avoid the socio-cultural abyss to which the United States has sunk through extreme liberalism, we need to reign in our liberalist tendencies. That piece concluded in these words: “… When all those so-called more serious matters have been dealt with, the issues being currently touted as unimportant would have become intractable…”
In Homosexuality and the Price of Fish (October 12, 2008), I referred to that piece noting that “one of those issues being characterised as unimportant today…is homosexuality. As someone would have put it, what has homosexuality or nudity got to do with the price of fish, or garri? For effect, he would have added, “make we hear word, jare” which is street lingo for, let’s get serious.” That is exactly what the Guardian has said in more elegant prose.
In that October piece, I recalled a TIME online story which demonstrated how “within the space of 43 years, homosexuality and same-sex marriages have transformed from being a sin, a crime and a mental illness, to becoming an orientation to which human rights apply, a social preference and is increasingly being de-listed as a sin in many parts of the United States of America.”
I conclude today, as I did then - on a note of warning: “homosexuality might fare better sooner in Nigeria, if Nigerians, particularly the Church do not move against it now! The best of economic strategies will flounder in a decaying social milieu. The current state of the world’s economy is clear evidence that everything that can be shaken will be shaken, and that only that which is built on righteousness will stand.”
*PIX: Hon Dimeji Bankole, Speaker, Federal House of Representatives, Nigeria
No comments:
Post a Comment