I read this article that seems to include a lot of what is currently circulating as valid reasons for opposition of a basic human right.
Here is the article.
Link to the article called "Homo what?"
I won’t address all points, as the author covers other topics like female prostitution and child sex.
1) Changing the “natural order”.Sex has been around as long as marriage has. Homosexuality is not a recent invention. It was not imported into Africa, indigenous cultures were already familiar with it. There was no issue, then the Europeans came and brought their Victorian values, which outlawed homosexual behaviour. This is what the author is referring to by the “natural order”.
This means there was a time, when heterosexual couplings and homosexual couplings co-existed. The foundation of “heterosexual marriage”, did not dissolve. It continued, so why now when homosexuals are calling for their rights to be respected, heterosexuals view this as a threat?
2) What is this “moral” meltdown in the West the author is referring to? What makes African/or Caribbean people more “moral”, is it poverty? Many social vices which exist in the “West” exist in Africa/Caribbean also. You name it drug abuse, alcoholism, child abuse, spouse abuse, you name it, it exists. So this idea, that the “West” is somehow morally worse for recognising that sexual minorities have rights too doesn’t make them any more morally worse than people elsewhere. On the contrary by recognising the basic human right to freedom and equality, makes them a better society in my opinion
Link for article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3) Defiance for the sake of defiance, is meaningless. African countries are using the stand-off with Britain and other “Western” nations by denying and in many cases actively persecuting homosexuals as something to be proud of. They should separate defiance from reason, then re-think whether defiance is wise and sensible. It is disposable worthless political capital. When famine or natural disaster strikes, where is their defiance then?
4) It is true, that same sex relationships without intervention don’t produce children. As we all know there are ways to have children; by coupling with the opposite sex specifically for that purpose or medical intervention like artificial insemination.
African countries are not lacking children, they are not facing a shrinking population. In the case of Nigeria, there are too many people.
But because a union/marriage doesn’t produce children, that is no reason for denying same sex couplings? According to this argument then, any childless heterosexual couple should have their marriage forcibly dissolved. Which would be totally wrong and unnecessary. So why is it accepted for same sex attracted persons?
5) “More than a purely private decision, intimate pair bonding is a public commitment to conform to the valid interest of society reflected by law and the Law is a sieved collection of society's principles, attitudes and values to build a secular cathedral that serves as a sanctum for all”
This statement totally dehumanises marriage. According to this statement, freedom of choice and emotions have nothing to do with it. What a dreary of unwanted existence!
They talk about building a secular cathedral that serves as a sanctum for all. I thought secular societies, differentiate between religion and the state. One of the main pillars of opposition to gay rights/homosexual rights is that it is opposed to the religion as practiced in those societies. Yet these societies claim to be democratic and inclusive, which they are not. So I’m not too sure of what the author means by that statement. It seems to be filled with inconsistencies. (They talk of a secular cathedral, when they make no distintction between religion and the state. They mention the use of "all", when they don't wish to include everyone).
6) They go on to talk about the need to identify who they are and what they stand for. It would be interesting to see what label they would use for themselves. As things stand now they certainly aren’t democractic, or inclusive or egalitarian.
7) According to the author, “the foundational flaw in the homosexuality argument is their inability to show, why the children of heterosexuals should be allowed to fill the void” – to use her words.
Obviously checks have to be put in place before any orphan or homeless child is sent to a foster home. True in the “poisoned” atmosphere in Africa this will be very challenging to find individuals who are just looking at the facts, and nothing else (but it is not impossible).
Just because a child is raised in a homosexual home doesn’t mean they will turn out homosexual. Similarly, not all heterosexual homes have children who turn out to be heterosexual. As long as no abuse is occurring, and that the interests of the child are better served by being with a foster family than being left to languish in state institutions, then this shouldn’t be a problem.
This whole issue has become blown out of all proportion, and people should take a step back and assess things with a clear and reasoned mind. Rather than throwing insults and going on the rampage to attack sexual minorities, be it physically or using the law.