Earlier it was California's Proposition 8 getting quashed, then it was Tyler Clementi, a college freshman who committed suicide after his roommate filmed him having sex and broadcast it on the web, then it was the church group protesting at the funeral of a gay soldier, next it was the Bronx attacks and last night, a NY Gubernatorial candidate (I need to quote here) said; "My children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option. It isn't"
Needless to say the uproar that has greeted these events have been resounding, and there have been condemnations from various quarters as well.
This has led me to re-evaluate my own position on the gay issue, to identify my prejudices, if any, bias, support and the sources and justifications for these positions.
Having spent my first 30 years in Nigeria, it comes as no surprise that I do not know any LGBT, well at least any that is 'out of the closet' so to speak. Thus I have no personal experience to bring to bear on this issue.
On self-examination however, I realized that my most perceptible emotions towards and about gays were negative - off the cuff, I felt it was unnatural, aberrant, unhealthy, dysfunctional.
When I probed further, I found out that these definitions only applied to their sexuality, that is, I personally wouldn't mind meeting with, working with or making friends with a gay person. I have always believed that a man's private deeds are no concern of mine.
Next I endeavored to determine the source of my prejudice, this wasn't hard, both my native African culture and religious teaching as a Muslim take a dim view of homosexuality.
Since my recent immigration to the US, I have had to come to terms with the American Way, which simply put: states that it is the individual, not the State or any social or religious group, that will determine the requirements for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The American society accepts all manner of people and faith and creed and race and sexual orientation.
Yes (some of) the people are religious but the State will not favor one religion over the other. Thus what may have been outlawed by faith can be lawful in the eyes of the State. This has been taken by people to mean that the State is Anti-religion, and many have defended it arguing that not supporting religious views is not tantamount to being against religion.
I believe that the USA is anti-religion. Just as being Christian is anti-Islam and being Muslim is anti-Christianity because no faith is truly egalitarian and tolerant. Each claims not just superiority of knowledge, but monopoly of the truth. Not to support or promote any faith is to stand in the way of that faith.
Back to the Gay issue, it is noteworthy that virtually every faith demeans the practice of homosexuality, and yet the practice can be found in every culture, ethnicity and race. It is also rather remarkable that these religious teachings aligned with the prevailing social dogma at the times the religions were established.
This is a recurring theme with world religions where along with the gospel of the One True God, the dominant belief systems have also been codified and taught alongside the real message. Thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam are patriarchal while the Far Eastern and Asian faiths predominantly are animistic.
I believe that homophobia is of man, not from God. For in the Eyes of God, all sinners have the potential for redemption. Had fornication and adultery been an uncommon aberrant behavior it would have been as successfully vilified by religious leaders.
My premise is based on three simple facts. That sexual orientation is biologically determined. That aberrations are statistically inevitable and that God does not make mistakes.
The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not just 'sodomy and bestiality' as pop culture would have us believe. In Ezekiel 16: 48-50 (God said) of Sodom (and the four cities): "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."
The cardinal sins are acts of voluntary will initiated by a perverted mind, not oddities of nature.
In view of the above, I will never discriminate against any LGBT, however this does not mean I subscribe to all of their agitations.
For instance, I vehemently oppose the adoption of children by Gay (male) couples, but I have no such reservations for lesbians who conceive through artificial techniques. About Gay Marriage? My position is that the US law errs in adopting the religious definition of marriage, or better put, in adopting the religious term rather than the more legalistic term; 'civil union'.
This is my opinion, my position, my stance...
Thank you.
Going through your article, I noticed that there are some issues which you didn't explore well most likely because you don't have sufficient knowledge in them.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you mentioned that the US is anti-religion.I disagree with you.Initially, you wrote that the US doesn't favour one religion over another, then a few lines later you wrote it is anti-religion.If the US was anti-religion, it would not tolerate any religious practice at all whether openly or in the closet!What the founding fathers did was to separate religion from the State though religion plays a prominent role in politics ie christianity in our present time.Does that define anti-religion to you?
You also wrote that virtually every faith demeans homosexuality though it's the Abrahamic faiths you had in mind.What does Ifa say about homosexuality?It is note-worthy to know what the gods of your fathers say about this,not just the foreign god you have adopted.The next step is for you tell us the reasons why the Abrahamic faiths are against homosexuality so that we the readers can have a critical examination of such reasons.You also mentioned the patriarchal nature of the Abrahamic faiths and the animistic ones of the Far-Eastern religions.What were you trying to pass across there with respect to homosexuality? Are you saying that animism favours homosexuality?Care to elucidate and bring up some credible sources we can check?
I know that you are a muslim,however, you guys,alongside with others who worship gods or goddesses have no evidence for the existence of your deities,so the issue of 'God'not making mistakes or people being sinners does not hold water at all.An overwhelming majority of the opponents to same-sex relationships are religious,and they use their religion to demean and villify homosexuality.You religious lot have not being able to come up with any concrete evidence against it.All you do is whip out your religious documents and force your opinions on others.
Oyebola,I know you were a member of the Forum in UCH and lots of peole respect you. However, I think you haven't written this article up to expectations.You wrote that you 'vehemently oppose the adoption of children by gay(male)couples.Why is this so? What reasons do you have for holding such a strong opinion? Have you examined these opinions of yours and backed them with irrefutable evidence? Why do you then support lesbains conceiving artificially?You need to elaborate on these!
You need to explore more on human sexuality and behaviour.You need to know that for the fact that we live in a heteronormative society,same-sex relationships are normal not aberrations as you referred to them and such individuals should have the same right just like everyone else even in procreating.
Besides, how would you know anyone who has publicly come out of the closet in 9ja knowing how homophobic and insanely religious we are?
Dear Temitope,
ReplyDeleteYou have raised several points here and I will attempt to make the clarifications requested. Let me point out though that in writing this article, I only wanted to state my opinion and encourage others to examine their prejudices and positions as well. It was not designed to be a convincing essay in favour of or against any position.
Here is a check-list of your queries (in chronological order)
- What do you mean by US being anti-religion?
- What does Ifa say about sexuality?
- What is the relevance of animism to homosexuality?
- Why do you oppose adoption by male couples?
- Why do you support lesbians conceiving artificially?
In addition, I will also address paragraph four as well as the last two paragraphs.
When I say that the US government is anti-religion, I do not mean it in the same sense as the Chinese or N. Korean governments are opposed to religion. These are regimes that have chosen to suppress religion in its entirety. The US government chooses to acknowledge God but not to promote or favour any religion.
However, at the reductionist level, the different faiths were established to be propagated, there is no official 'passive' role.
Like I said, not to support any of the faiths, is actually to stand in its way of achieving world predominance.
I do not know what Ifa says about homosexuality. However whatever the 'gods of our fathers' said about it must have surely reflected in their dispositions towards it, and the negative disposition of the Yoruba regarding homosexuality is not in doubt.
I am not as certain that I mentioned why the Abrahamic religions are against homosexuality although I did say that 'it is rather remarkable that these religious teachings aligned with the prevailing social dogma at the times the religions were established'. These dogmas which for emphasis I will add, were distinctly homophobic.
It was along the same line I mentioned the eventual patriarchal and animistic natures of Abrahamic and Asian religions respectively, to exemplify how dominant social beliefs were codified and taught alongside the Divine message. I did not mean to imply that animism favours homosexuality although interestingly, homosexuality was practised by Buddhist monks and Samurai warriors.
The message in your fourth paragraph was mis-directed. The fact that I am a Muslim does not mean I share the same prejudices with all Muslims. Besides, attacking the basis of theology does not help the LGBT cause much. It is a lose-lose situation. As you should know, inability to prove God's existence does not automatically disprove it.
My opposition to the adoption of children by male couples is a Child's Right issue. I feel such children would not be given a fair chance at family, especially maternal bonding. This should also explain why I would support artificial conception by lesbians.
You got it wrong in the pen-ultimate paragraph, a heteronormative society is just that; one in which a heterosexual relationship is the norm.
I thank you for having such high expectations of me, and I hope to have done a better job this time around. Though I fear I may have derailed from my initial objective, which was to present my opinions in a simple manner, rather than backing them with argument.
You still hold that ace over me, for I do not know who you are...
I found your reason for opposing child adoption/raising by gay couples very superficial.Maternal bonding??? Do you mean to say that a man in a hetero relationship who has lost his partner either through death or a break-up in the relationship,and has a child with him is incapable of raising this child because there is no maternal bonding? Would you in all honesty trot out this reason to such a man and say that this child should not be raised by the man? Have you never come across men who raise children on their own without the input of women?
ReplyDeleteWe humans have progressed from our cavemen ancestors and with this evolution, traditional roles are being reversed.Women provide for the family and men have been showing themselves capable of raising children and bonding with them and such parents do not necessarily have to be in the same household. True,some gays expressed the same reason you mentioned, but evidence has shown that gays have successfully raised children into normal adults and provided them with love and stability.Those who feel inadequate or have misgivings but still want to raise a family are being taught how to take on this 'unfamiliar' role through seminars,teaching support sessions and books.Some have been requested to undergo psychological counselling in order to ascertain their ability to raise children ( a reason which should be extended to heterosexual couples since not all heteros are capable of raising children).Do you think it's all women who bond with their children? Is 'maternal bonding' the all in all when raising children? Children raised by gays have said that they did not miss out on this 'maternal bonding' because they have been taken care of and loved by a loving parents,even though they are both males.
I was expecting you to mention/discuss well-thought out reasons like the effects of gay parenting on the psycho-social development of a child in such family,or even comparing the mental development of children raised in gay households with those in hetero- households. Those are the important issues to address.Even in the lesser animals, it has been found that the males in some of them take on the role of the female in taking care of their young, how much more we humans who are to said to be higher?
You mentioned 'family' with a heterosexaul relationship in mind,but my dear, whether it is to your liking or not, gays and lesbians raise families,and such is here to stay.
As I mentioned in my previous post,most of homophobia today is underpinned by religion.For you to have mentioned religious terms like redemption,sinners,God,you took the arrogant position of religious people that the whole world needs to show their allegiance to the mythical deity they favour and that certain behaviours are frowned upon by their god hence, people who engage in such need redemption.If people removed their god-goggles, they would be able to see clearly and address such issues(and many others) with clear and rational thinking.So attacking theism and exposing its hypocrisy,inanity and hatred is certainly one of the ways the scales can be tipped in favour of LGBT. You look at it, if you remove the religious bias, what is left is very little and can be tackled with critical reasoning, evidence and political will.So it isn't a lose-lose situation o.Religion favoured/s slavery and it was fought against.I can imagine that people at that time ,said like you, that it was a lose-lose situation, but what do we have now? You religious minds like saying the same thing about your god existing ,yet you come up short when you are asked to prove his/hers/its existence and usually resort to circular reasoning. I will not delve too much into this since it is not the focus of your topic, but if you have blog on religion,I would love to have some jaw-jaw with you.
I didn't get it wrong when I mentioned heteronormative.You would have noticed that in the same paragraph, I wrote that same sex relationships are normal too,not aberrants. What I should have done was to have added quotation marks ie 'heteronormative'. There, I meant hetero relationships being the predominant form NOT the only normal form. Besides, by what criteria was it decided upon that hetero relationships are normal and others aren't?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your take on Ifa and how homosexuality is reflected in the society.Today,the Yorubas will be quick to denounce anyone who advocates human sacrifice but this has not always been so.Human sacrifice was part of the culture of the Yorubas and this was backed by Ifa through the Odu.However, as the people evolved, so did the Odus(so much for the eternal and immutable words of the gods).When the thinking of the people changed, their religious practices changed too(some,not all).This change is also found in Christianity and Islam where you have the liberals who read a different interpretation in their scriptures.Now, Ifa looks at the spirituality of the human and instructs on how we can live better lives and be at peace with others.It is however silent on homosexuality ie did not consider it an issue.Some mischievious Alawos with their prejudice are saying that Ifa is against homosexuality(at least by that,they accepted that homosexuality exists in our society before the Oyinbos invaded).And it is this prejudice that is reflected in the society.
//I found your reason for opposing child adoption/raising by gay couples very superficial. Maternal bonding???//
ReplyDeleteFine, I acknowledge your opinion as stated.
Do you mean that a heterosexual male who has lost his mate is incapable of raising the child?
I mean that paternity/ maternity is a biological concept, not a social construct. Furthermore you choose to approach this from the "parents'" point of view. As I stated, I'd rather empathize with the children (how do they feel about same-sex parents?) Until we know, I remain skeptical.
And a child raised by gay parents cannot know whether or not (s)he 'missed out' on maternal bonding.
I don't need to employ 'well though-out reasons' to support my opinions. I do not seek to take a popular position, merely present mine.
Psycho-social and mental developmental studies are not hard science, compelling arguments can be made for sharply contrasting premises. One will always find studies that favor any given number of variables, thus they are not important issues for me regarding the LGBT debate.
A personal note to you. I have no problems with LGBT people. I do have a problem with individuals who define themselves first and foremost by their sexuality. I find it offensive when women dress provocatively, I find it repugnant when I see men grab and fondle their crotches or ogle women in public, I find it repulsive when I see a man showing off to the world that he is gay. It is a matter of decency, and self-respect.
My take on human sexual activity is simple. Vaginal penetration by a tumescent phallus is the biological normal. Every other form, fellatio, anal sex (either hetero- or homo-sexual) are human-social variants. They exist for human gratification only. Sexual preferences define humans only in the same way dietary preferences do.
I understand that LGBT are in a fight for survival, for freedom of expression, for basic human rights, I join them in this fight.
Others also seek to extend this to include special privileges, and child adoption is one. I do not advocate that LGBT be excluded from the adoption process, only that their status be factored into the decision-making process, LGBT advocates don't want it to be considered.
LGBT may go into partnerships with their lovers, but by doing so, do not need to disrupt the concept of marriage, a heterosexual privilege. Let them fight for the law to treat homosexual unions as equal with marriage, but find another term for it.
I maintain that it is a hard sell, to fight for social integration by seeking to disrupt the social fabric of the mainstream.