Revisiting the LGBT Debate
The volume of responses generated by my last article entitled, “Gays and Lesbians, We Will Not Keep Quiet!” has put me under responsibility to write a sequel to address genuine concerns raised by some of my readers. First of all, I want to state that my position on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) matters is not based on dogmatic religion, popular culture or subjective morality. Rather, my stance is founded on the universal principles of conscience, common sense and character as supported by scientific and medical research. Against this background, I intend to address issues ranging from instances of homosexuality in animals to questions of individual liberty and challenges with heterosexual marriage as they affect the LGBT debate.
Incidence of homosexuality in animals is no basis for its expression in man. Unlike other members of the animal kingdom which are mainly creatures of instinct, Homo sapiens(man with intelligence) has an intellectual and a spiritual side to him. Man as an intellectual and spiritual being is expected to demonstrate a sense of good judgement beyond instinctive behaviour. Homosexuality is a primordial instinct of animality (the animal side of man as opposed to the intellectual and spiritual) which must be subjected to the higher principles of commonsense and conscience.
Only heterosexual union offers the promise of continued preservation of the human species with healthy societies. Same sex unions are simply a means to satisfy warped passions and shameful lusts; they have no potential for positive contribution to society. Regardless of high divorce rate and other challenges associated with conventional (heterosexual) marriage, it remains the most fundamental institution in every society. Downplaying conventional marriage because of the attendant challenges is like discarding computers because of the prevalence of malware.
Concerning the state's position on the LGBTsaga, we must realise that LGBT tendencies have little or nothing to do with the law; and much more to do with discordant personal beliefs and warped value system. Consequently, what we must emphasise is value re-orientation, not legislation. Legislation may work in the short term, but it is sure to fail in the long term. The key to sustainable transformation is re-orientation and right education.
For those who think we must tolerate homosexuality on the basis of "individual liberty", we must recognise that marriage entails much more than emotional satisfaction. Marriage is not a sexual pleasure centre; it's a social unit without which the human society cannot exist. Like any other relationship, marriage exists ultimately for the common good of the society, not for selfish gratification of the persons involved. Can we honestly say that homosexual unions have any potential to foster the common good of the society? Isn't it interesting to note that proponents of same sex union are themselves products of heterosexual union?
Whilst there are tonnes of facts, figures and research findings that clearly elucidate the peril of homosexual relations, it may not be practicable to present them in a 600-word article such as this; it'll take a treatise or a public debate to do that. I'll probably do a dissertation on this in the process of time. Until then, I'll content myself with engaging my audience via tweets, Facebook posts and brief articles. Like I said in my previous piece, LGBT movements have an agenda to topple the very foundations of our society; and they are committed to it. Straight people must be bold enough to pursue an opposing agenda with greater commitment.
Philip Amiola is a teacher, writer and campaigner of empowerment. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria and tweets from @PhilipAmiola.