Tunde Fagbenle: What my daughter told me about homosexuality

by Tunde Fagbenle

Gay-Nigerians-21

It is clear that society needs standards. We have outlined certain limits to marriage, of course, namely no incest or marriage to minors, animals, etc. but shall we include the marriage of two men or two women (equal under civic law) in this list? With animals?

 

When, earlier this year, the controversy on homosexuality was raging in Nigeria with President Jonathan signing a law criminalising the relationship, thus earning rebuke, if not infamy, of quite a number in the comity of nations, especially outside Africa, I threw the issue open to my grown up children for their take on it. Nigeria’s rising literary star, Chimamanda Adichie had just released her outburst against Nigeria’s anti-gay law, and I was quite at sea on where I belonged.

What ensued was a flurry of exchange that now forms part of our Family Philosophical Musings soon to be published. It went on for days and amounted to a huge volume from which I offer one of the responses from my then 18-year old daughter, Torera, for its depth and interest.

I wrote:

Hi all,

The issue of anti-gay laws — of association, marriage, etc — is one that disturbs my mind, more because I do not know where I (should) belong in the debate than anything else.

This link (READ HERE) is to an article by Chimamanda Adichie, the popular Nigerian female novelist, on the issue.

Unfortunately she has not quelled or assuaged my perplexity. I am uncomfortable with the gay “phenomenon”, yet I am persuaded that criminalising it is not the right thing. I think I do have a problem with the permissiveness and “extreme” stretch of protection of “human rights” in the granting of marriage rights to homosexuals.

Why? I think with one boundary of permissiveness broken would come yet another and yet another until the entire social fabric of human societies collapse. The question I ask is: what or who says those with “aberrant” urges for sex with animals do not have “personal rights” to protect? Chimamanda did not give answer to that question by her saying the question is an attempt to equate being gay with being animal. I am not saying that, but I want to know if there is a thing to say such urges do not have “biological” origin that demands our “understanding” and equal permissiveness.

I do not have any hard-formed opinion on this topic and I truly seek informed opinions that could sway me one way or the other. I do own up, however, to the “bias” of the values I grew within.

Love

Dad

Torera’s take:

Hmm. Thanks for sharing, Dad. I have much to say on this topic, because it touches me dearly, despite my heterosexual identity. I think it is a human rights issue, and one in which certain lawmakers, whether in Nigeria or Uganda or Jamaica or Russia, went sorely wrong. I’ll try not to echo too many of Adichie’s, Bro O-T’s and Sis B’s points.

When legitimate relationships are not recognised under a legitimate law system, then we know that there is something wrong with the laws.

I sometimes wonder, who would consciously choose such a life? It is easy for us, as non-homosexuals, to debate the lives and rights of others, just like the Europeans debated — with unsettling ease — the lives and rights of African-Americans for years. The two have very different circumstances, but the issues remain the same: who are we, or if you believe in a god, who is he or anyone to determine whether or not a human being can marry another? “Because the bible (which may or may not be the word of God, and has most certainly been edited by men) says so”, does not work, and who gives the bible authority? If this is a religious issue, for many it’s quite apparent that God may exist, or he may not exist. But for believers to say not only that God exists, but that everyone should subscribe to God’s laws, is a step too far.

Despite my love for Jesus (albeit secularly spiritual, if there can exist such a thing), I am aware that not everyone believes in God or his laws, and so one cannot possibly command all peoples to adhere to such laws. Further, even those who agree that God exists, often disagree on the meaning of his words. There are Christians and Muslims and Jewish people and people of other religions, who have divergent opinions on this matter. Even within religions there is intra-clashing of opinions. Some say God loves all people regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homosexuality is not actually a sin (the bible is even unclear about this, especially when we are considering the historical context. Is it referring to men who lie with other men, or men who lie with boys, the latter act being a common thing in the ancient societies at the time of the bible’s writing). And others say, of course it is a sin, sex is only natural when the parties involved are 1) married and 2) have the ability to pro-create. Those people, of course, should also take serious offense with extra-marital activity that is seen amongst heterosexuals. The argument about God and his will is a circular one that I have no patience to entertain.

It is clear that society needs standards. We have outlined certain limits to marriage, of course, namely no incest or marriage to minors, animals, etc. but shall we include the marriage of two men or two women (equal under civic law) in this list? With animals?

Then there’s the slippery slope argument: if A, then B, and maybe even C, or (God forbid) D. If the fear really is of a possible dissolution of the ‘social fabric’ (which already seems non-existent), then we are waging the wrong war. If the fear really is of a possible dissolution of the ‘social fabric’, then we should address the issue of divorce with equal or greater zest.

There are children, there are teens, young people, who kill themselves (or get killed) over this, who get kicked out of their homes and are ostracised by what seems to be the whole world. With these anti-gay laws, it truly is a matter of life and death. If being gay is not a choice (and frankly, not one that I would choose in this climate), then gays should be afforded all the rights and liberties afforded heterosexuals. One’s sexuality says nothing about one’s character. I most certainly will stand beside the gay community, as an ally, because I know it is the right thing to do. I have analysed the situation, and the only thing holding people back from giving gays all rights is a vested interest in tradition. I see that tradition can sometimes be good and beneficial to society (the tradition of sitting down to talk with a gay person and look them in the eye before one condemns them to a life marred by illegitimacy, would be very helpful here), but when tradition is wrong, it must change.

Marriage, which has existed long before religion, is a union between two consenting adults which can only strengthen the ‘social fabric’. If we ban gays from marriage or ‘gay activity’, I can only imagine the present situation deteriorating further. I have to be honest: when those laws came out, I closed my eyes and in that moment, wished I had nothing to do with Nigeria – that’s how ashamed I was.

The stigma of perversion associated with gays, highlighted by the U.S. AIDS crisis of the 70s/80s (and you’d think by the Catholic Church, too, in repulsion to many of its own male members’ paedophilia), is one we must abandon entirely.

I am friends with a number of gay people. One of my best friends (actually, the 2012 valedictorian of Blair (her High School)) is gay. I see no way for me to inform her that she doesn’t have the same rights as I. And of course there are millions more like her. By many standards, my friend is more deserving of marriage than many of the heterosexual people I know – she is the paragon of virtue and compassion and I honestly would not be who I am without her advice, or without her life as an example.

(To be continued)

——————

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.

 

 

Comments (6)

  1. Interesting piece.. now not interesting because its content was gripping but interesting in that one would go back and forth to defend homosexuals albeit rather in-explicitly. In any case, God has asked us to love all persons, at least my bible tells me that much. If a man is gay and not an armed robber, he’s not a threat to my life and that of my family, I don’t see why I should pray to God to kill him for me – if i were to go extreme. So in love, I’d for instance, pray for every gay person, that they understand God’s love in its entirety and live life as they understand His love. Much more, I’d understand the dictates of the Bible better and its origin too, before I begin to explain underlying meanings in it or make inferences.

  2. I just think this opinion is an indication of the authors decision not to be explicitly thorough. Have we considered if the whole world goes gay/lesbian,how we are going to continue existing as a creatimure? You will tell me there are mordern ways of getting Children,but you must be sincere, if you will that The moment such a thing happens(lack of natural births) an human holocaust is in the offing,we will cease to exist!

    1. “What if everyone goes gay” This premise assumes that being gay is a choice, a fad. What rational human being would choose to have a sexual orientation that marks them for ridicule and turmoil, especially on this side of the pond. Being gay is no more a choice than being black or female.

      Arguments about morality are sanctimonious and filled with holes. If the laws of the land were created based on the bible, all of us would have been in prison at some point.

    2. Talking about thoroughness, I believe you didn’t quite hit the mark with your comment.
      The question the author sought to answer, basically, was, ‘Should homosexuality be criminalised?’.
      In other words, ‘Is it a crime to be gay?’
      According to your point, obviously it is, because of your postulation that if all men and women on earth chose to be gay (which I seriously don’t see happening- how do you?), we’d be gunning for extinction.
      It is not a choice. It’s like being tall or short, black or white. You don’t get to choose that do you?
      Now, giving you an example just like yours: It’s definitely not a crime to be a priest or a nun. Sworn to celibacy. Procreation is certainly out of the question here, no different than being gay, which is your reason for criminalising such a union. Imagine if all men and women chose to be priests and nuns, what would be our fate? See? That scenario you gave wasn’t quite encompassing.
      It’s just not worth it. Criminalising an activity simply (and only) because we do not understand it is criminal.
      Thanks.

  3. tor god if u can allow ebola to kill both good and bad people is in your hand

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

cool good eh love2 cute confused notgood numb disgusting fail