Introduction<\/p>\n
Many ancient and modern day great personalities are identified as homosexuals. Examples include Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci Sappho \u2013a poet from the island of Lesbos (I don\u2019t have to tell you where the term Sapphic love and lesbianism\/Lesbo-bo originated) and Alexander the great. William Bruce Jenner (Caitlyn Jenner), Wentworth Miller (Michael Scoffield) and Dr. Ali Gabass are among modern day persons reported to be homosexuals and\/or transgender. The public flogging of another alleged homosexual in Nima, a suburb of Accra is bad enough to prompt my observations and reflections.<\/p>\n
I intend to discuss broadly the case of discrimination and prejudice against homosexuality and maybe bisexuality. As a Psychology student studying behavior and health, I feel responsible to expunge some nuances in the matters of homosexuality\/sexual orientations, which without stating the obvious, have become very sensitive requiring cool-headedness in addressing them.<\/p>\n
The discourse about homosexuality is largely referenced as opposing social change, social discourse, social life, social action and in-action, morality, moral values, etc. It is undeniable and palpably true that societies are changing. Change is constant and every society in one way or the other will remain in an indefinite state of evolution. The evolving society should therefore have a place for change, if indeed, there\u2019s an argument for change. Pope Francis\u2019 call for the synod of the Catholic Church in mid-October of 2014, to soften the stance on homosexuality exemplifies this argument even though such a liberal reform to the Church\u2019s doctrine fell short of the two thirds majority it needed for success. The Pope\u2019s \u2018to soften the stance on homosexuality\u2019 call was to be expected. Earlier, the Pope had rhetorically provided an answer to the questions whether gays can be good Christians, in which he answered, \u201cWho am I to judge?\u201d<\/p>\n
Etiologies of homosexuality<\/p>\n
Many scholars have brilliantly provided clues to absorbing homosexuality into the social change process. One of such in psychology literature is the conservative view, which had early on noted that homosexuality is an aberration and the orientation is a disorder and therefore the behavior is pathological. Researches into origins, causes and development of homosexuality led to a revised notion which removed homosexuality from the American Psychological Association (APA) manual as a disorder in 1973. A 1975 public statement released by the APA stated that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. Recently, in 1994, the APA stated that, ‘…homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality.’ The other one, the progressive view, notes that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition and that homosexual behavior is natural. It is important to acknowledge that sexual orientation is experienced in many complex ways which are influenced by biological and\/or social factors.<\/p>\n
In the nature or nurture debate currently going on, the arguments are that the cause of homosexuality is either genetic or environmental. Indeed I reckon that there are genetic factors that can make some individuals more likely to develop a predisposition towards homosexuality while there are also some environmental factors that can intervene in an individual\u2019s disposition to make that individual more likely to develop homosexuality. This is more complex than it is contained in the propositions of nature versus nurture. Until we understand the complexity of what causes homosexuality, it is unlikely that we will appreciate how deeply ingrained homosexuality can become in some people, and the extreme difficulty one faces if they choose to abandon it. Consequently, any attempt to seek to discriminate against the basis of any category will risk oversimplification and a reductionist approach of the behavior and consequently of our society. Oversimplification, reductionism and intolerance will lead to chaos, need I say more?<\/p>\n
A.Tradition and Homosexuality
\nIn almost all of Africa, many have argued that homosexuality is against our tradition, and rightly so. I shall elucidate this tradition from my personal point of view in most of the discussions following, also as used by Thomas Kuhn elsewhere. On the subject of tradition, it is understood to mean that tradition serves a twofold purpose. Firstly, tradition serves as a means of preserving lessons and practices acquired by members (governed by the tradition) and for subsequent transmission of the acquired lessons to future generations. Secondly, tradition serves as a means of identifying and unifying a group of people. Beyond this twofold function of tradition, I argue that one ought to appreciate that tradition is exercised by some members of a society, for which reason the functions therein are made manifest and meaningful.<\/p>\n
For example, I have come to realize that indeed Lev Vygotsky supposition that in reality, meanings do not exist in void but in texts and that the two \u2013texts and meanings \u2013are inseparable is a critical turning point. How does one make meaning without text or how does one make sense of void? For meaning to be made, there ought to exist or to have been in existence a thing for which its meaning will be made meaningful. Where one seeks to make meaning independent of existence of whatever or a thing or an object, that is, where one seeks to make meaning of void, such meaning is likely to be implausible, unrealistic or farfetched, to say the least. Consequently, it is to be understood that tradition, taking into consideration its twofold purpose, exists because tradition is made meaningful and exercised. This is axiomatic. This is what I want to call the exercise of tradition located within the broad ontology of tradition.<\/p>\n
Tradition therefore is exercised by members for whom the services of tradition are provided. Of course, tradition does not exist in void to serve its purpose. The service of tradition is exercised and made meaningful by the members for whom tradition exists. Without this understanding, tradition makes the members for whom tradition serves mere spectators of tradition and passive agents while making tradition active and a priori to the members. Tradition is revered, preserved, protected and it has now almost become sacred despite its ever evolving nature. Is it not important to interrogate, who made it sacred?<\/p>\n
How it was made sacred? Who supervised the process of making it sacred? The sacredness of tradition (as a result of which we appear not to want to contaminate it) by virtue of members being the ones exercising this sacredness cannot be said to be static and untouchable but dynamic and evolving. It cannot also be said to be a priori to the members for whom tradition exists. As wisdom evolves and as we learn new things, our conception of ourselves and of our societies must inevitably evolve too.<\/p>\n
This, however, should not be understood to threaten the stability and unity of our sacred tradition. As subject to exercise and meaning making by members, the essences of tradition remain constantly and endlessly updated, refined and improved as a result of its exercise by its members and as a result of its dynamic nature. Tradition is made by and for members of a group. It is implausible and a misnomer to argue that members are made for tradition. For example, how will abolishing the annual Reed Dance where very young girls are paraded bare-breasted for subsequent selection of \u201cliphovela\u201d threaten the stability and unity of the traditions of Swaziland?<\/p>\n
Consequently, the evolution of society and tradition exigencies facing us mean that one must as a matter of urgency provide space for changes \u2013a change, of which homosexuality is just one of the many. In the case of inflexibility in this ever evolving and dynamic change process, resistance to change will ultimately lead to chaos.<\/p>\n
The esteemed Sociologist, Edward Shils notes in his book, Tradition, which explores the history, significance and future of tradition that the moral entities by which right and wrong are determined in themselves without further justification (value systems) are contained in tradition. However, I am afraid to say that in modernization processes and in the face of enlightenment, there ought to be replaced tradition which justified certain ways of doing things and made them right with rational decision-making procedures. This latter approach may be often more effective in solving problems of our modernized society (in which tradition is located), albeit not losing hold of the moral force of tradition.<\/p>\n
To come out, as it is known in the homosexual parlance, can be very daunting and almost suicidal. But why should such a situation exist? When other people suggest that homosexuality is an aberration, indecent, demonic and therefore has no place in our society, I tend to worry. Shall we take it at face value? In line with Rousseau\u2019s social contract, to say that a man gives himself in a manner that is self-destructing is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that he who does it is out of his mind. Therefore, by extension to the homosexual community, to say the same of a whole people is to suppose a people of madmen; will this approach suffice satisfactory results since this remains as the core understanding regarding homosexuals? This understanding is deficient, defective and impaired in many ways.<\/p>\n
Even if each homosexual could alienate himself, he could not alienate his children, he could also not alienate his neighbors: they are born men and free; their liberty belongs to them, and no one but they has the right to dispose of it. Before they come to years of discretion, the father or neighbor can, in their name, lay down conditions for their preservation and well-being, but he cannot give them irrevocably and without conditions: such a gift is contrary to the ends of nature, and exceeds the rights of paternity, so does it exceed the right and freedom of association. It would therefore be necessary, in order to legitimize an arbitrary right; which suggests that all people shall be non-homosexuals that in every generation the people should be in a position to accept it; but, were this so; the right will no longer be arbitrary when in fact it is arbitrary.<\/p>\n
B.Religion and homosexuality<\/p>\n
Oh! And just in case any judgmental critic wonders if I am a godly person, yes I am. Surely, I say unto you that I do not hide behind the cloak of religion to obfuscate my opinion on such sensitive matters. Besides, what does the Bible teach about homosexuality and what are the implications thereof? Let us go into that. To begin with, I will not discuss the debate surrounding David and Jonathan, and also Ruth and Naomi. I refer you to the Books of Samuel and Ruth in the Bible accordingly. Let\u2019s continue anyhow.<\/p>\n
The Bible (KJV) teaches that (Mark 10:6-7) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. (Leviticus 18:22)Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (1 Corinthians 6:9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.<\/p>\n
(Jude 1:7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Clearly, these indicate unequivocally and unambiguously strong prohibitions against homosexuality. What the Bible does not teach is the vile hostility against another who for some reasons is considered unparalleled, one of the strongest aversions ever witnessed in the history of mankind.
\nOf significant note is that the Bible does not separate fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate and abusers of themselves (I Corinthians 6:9).<\/p>\n
Many times I have encountered religious people who speak strongly against effeminacy. It is my desire that those who profess the faith and true love of God will also appreciate creating a space to receive the changes we are witnessing in society of which homosexuality is just one. In a conversation, a friend who \u2018came out\u2019 to me said, what you people don\u2019t realize is that, for us so called homosexuals, we are not perturbed when you point fingers at us. Knowing that you sit in your churches and yet fornicate or are adulterous, how different are we? I was not interested in that line of debate. But that is the fact about the shortfall of the argument against homosexuals mostly by some people who profess the Christian faith.
\nJesus was quick to receive sinners and to lead them to the way of righteousness and everlasting life. I do not suggest that anyone is a sinner. Who am I to judge?<\/p>\n
Will his disciples be ready and quick to receive those whom in their sight are sinners? Paul said to the Galatians, Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6: 1-2). And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2: 24-26).<\/p>\n
When on grounds of religion another is discriminated against as in the case of homosexuals, the repercussions are dire. They are dire because they reinforce the already existing nescience of religion and the almost agnostic perspective being advanced against religion. It is for this and many similar reasons that some people, including Freud, have argued that religion is a childish response to the need for safety and protection from the overpowering forces of nature. B. F. Skinner also argued that God is the archetype pattern of an explanatory fiction, one that becomes irrelevant when the fears which nourish it are allayed and the hopes fulfilled \u2013here on earth.<\/p>\n
My position is that religion is not merely a defense, it is not recourse to denying personal difficulties but that religion gives one the hopes, reassurances and enables one to face or to re-group to facing difficulties rather than denying them. Religion is far from encouraging defensiveness, passivity and pathology. My religion, the Christian religion, which I know and can speak of, represents a potent and a powerful force of God which enables me to grapple with whatever difficulty there is to grapple with and that enables me to receive the undeserving grace, endless joy and the supernatural impact in all aspects of my life as designed by God the father, God the son and God the Holy spirit.<\/p>\n
Conclusions<\/p>\n
Now, I begin to reflect. As we are likely to acknowledge that society is indefinitely changing and tradition remains exercised by the members of a society, shall we also not contemplate how the changing society will survive? This takes me to moral disengagement (theory). In understanding the human nature, one must acknowledge that people can learn moral standards and\/or values systems to avoid infractions on the moral or value systems. In the same vein, from a moral disengagement perspective, people can unlearn these moral or value systems in ways that make them justifiable and acceptable.<\/p>\n
For example, I think that Albert Bandura is right when he says widespread ethnic differences are producing atrocities of appalling proportions. When viewed from divergent perspectives the same violent acts are different things to different people. It is often proclaimed in conflicts of power that one group\u2019s terroristic activity is another group\u2019s liberation movement fought by heroic fighters. This is why moral appeals against violence usually fall on deaf ears. Adversaries sanctify their own militant actions, but condemn those of their antagonists as barbarity masquerading under a mask of outrageous moral reasoning. Each side feels morally superior to the other. This is also the case for advantageous comparison which serves self-exonerating purposes. For example, apologists for the lawlessness of political figures they support cite transgressions by past rival administrations as vindications, and in the case of my friend who \u2018came out\u2019 to me, he cited fornicators and adulterers.<\/p>\n
In the race for survival, only the strongest will survive. This is not a call for hostility, aversion and antagonism among humans. Therefore in the face of alternative form of life, what is the next step by non-homosexuals or heterosexuals? I will hasten to submit that heterosexuals live their lives such that heterosexuality will survive society\u2019s change while expecting that the other practice (here homosexuality) which does not parallel their (the heterosexuals) practice will gradually and hopefully extinct.<\/p>\n
Suppose for a moment that the father and the neighbor cannot give irrevocably and without conditions the rights and freedoms as mentioned earlier. Suppose also for a moment that, your neighbor is hesitant to acculturate to your way and practice of sexual orientation. Suppose also that you remain steadfast in your sexual preference, being loyal, honest and faithful to your partner and practice. Suppose that the changing society will survive based on which practice will remain strongest and most desired and most sought after. I maintain that the sole result will be the survival of the strongest come hell or high water. Every other weak or shunned practice will eventually extinct. And in the end, we will live happily ever after. This is a call for stability and unity among same minded persons.<\/p>\n
My name is Frederick and I am not a gay. I feel gayer because I love my wife, and she is Christiana. Thank you for reading.<\/p>\n
anyan4usall@yahoo.com<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction Many ancient and modern day great personalities are identified as homosexuals. Examples include Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci Sappho \u2013a poet from the island of Lesbos (I don\u2019t have to tell you where the term Sapphic love and lesbianism\/Lesbo-bo originated) and Alexander the great. William Bruce Jenner (Caitlyn Jenner), Wentworth Miller (Michael Scoffield) and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":135804,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[8,38],"yoast_head":"\n