Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible

Homosexuality, Biology and the Bible

© Ogaga Ifowodo

In my essay on the disturbing attitude to homosexuality in Nigeria entitled "Homosexuality and Nigeria's Enochs and Josephs" (NVS, 19 December 2011), I highlighted the efforts of Rev. Jasper Akinola, former primate of the Anglican communion in Nigeria, to exclude gays from the church and to turn same-sex relations into a crime punishable by long term imprisonment. His assumption, obviously, is that imprisonment is a cure to the "evil" of homosexuality, though if he succeeds in his aim (I hope not) he will learn the contrary soon enough when his prisoners return from jail with their desire intact.

alt

I also claimed that the views and actions of Akinola lack Christian love and understanding. The majority of the responses I received confirm my charge, with the most charitable claiming that my essay proves I am myself gay (as if I would thereby be insulted) and that I had lost any claim to being a human rights advocate. The less charitable simply declared me "an apostle of the devil." It seems the responses were drawn mostly from the sanctimonious army of the "born again" that thrives in substituting irrational frenzy for knowledge - the sort the apostle, Philip, might have asked, "Understandeth thou what thou readest?" But then I assume that in their endless paroxysm of spiritual possession they can even read or know what it means to say that "the letter killeth."

A minority of my born-again readers did, however, echo the cry of homosexuality as an unnatural practice, proof of which is that it cannot lead to procreation. As an argument, it appeals only to emotion, not reason, and I will take it up in the next and concluding essay. For now, I will say only that it gives false justification for the urge not only to demonise but, also, dehumanise and even banish homosexuals from society. Their same-sex desire is judged a personal and unpardonable choice. Nature cannot possibly have a hand in their condition; it simply cannot be the case that they are unable to help their feelings just as heterosexuals cannot help theirs for the opposite sex. But never a second to ponder why homosexuals would choose the most unpopular and dangerous thing to do in a homophobic world. Never a nanosecond to ask why gays would risk being ostracised or killed rather than be their "natural" heterosexual selves. Yet, it can be their fault only to the extent that the fig tree Jesus cursed so that it withered had chosen to do an unnatural thing: refuse to bear fruits. Jesus judges its difference from other fig trees in the matter of fruitfulness (procreation, if you will) as a crime against nature punishable by death.

But if we ask, What is the source of desire - or of pride, the primal sin - we cannot escape the conclusion that it comes from God's nature ("likeness") "breathed" into man. (A caveat: I do not believe in the myth of creation in Genesis but make these biblical references solely for the sake of argument. Science has proved beyond doubt that human life, never mind the earth itself, are not under ten thousand years old as the creationists, or "intelligent design" proponents, would have it.) The Old Testament prophets, Isaiah and Amos, and the author of Lamentations, assert that all things, good and evil, are created by God. The book of Samuel corroborates this view. As King Saul's punishment for disregarding the strict order to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites - to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" - he loses his kingdom to David. Consequently, "an evil spirit from the Lord came upon him" and drove him mad.

It may yet be argued that God did not create evil. And that this was the work of Satan, the eternal scapegoat. From whence then did Satan, head of the heavenly host as Angel Lucifer, acquire the sinful desire of pride or the power to create what was not already created, even though without God "was nothing made that was made?" Why, after evil had somehow been created behind God's back, couldn't he undo it all by saying simply, "Let there be no sin, now or forever more?" Well, because man and woman owe their nature to God, and that nature is both good and evil. Having failed in his task of creating only that which was "good," God "repented" that he had made man. Curiously, despite wiping out in the great flood all the sinful men on earth save the righteous Noah, evil somehow found its way back!

Not even Paul could explain the riddle of the source of evil; of homosexuality. When he says in the first book of Romans that God gave men and women up to "the lusts of their hearts to impurity," that he caused them to exchange "natural relations for those that are contrary to nature," the language betrays what Paul seeks to hide: that God, in effect, wills these men and women to the "unnatural" acts as punishment for not acknowledging his supremacy. So petty does Paul make God appear here that the list of evils deserving of death is repetitive and long: envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, disobedience to parents, invention of evil, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness and ruthlessness! Murder is rightly a crime, but Rev. Akinola must set his sights on criminalising the rest of these evils.

But biblical myths and early Christian pastorals aside, studies abound on the question of homosexuality and biology. Like most attempts to understand complex human phenomena, in particular such abstruse realms as neuro-biology and psycho-sexuality, the topic is still laden with many unanswered questions. But long after regarding homosexuality as a pathology whose cure psychiatrists sought in vain, and after the ugly epoch of forcing lesbians to undergo hysterectomies, sexual orientation is now seen as a biological issue. This better informed view may be called the hormonal theory of sexuality. Among many, the case of Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry whose brother and sister are gay - and whose grandfather (as he believes) was too - buttresses this approach. Studies by Pillard and the psychobiologist, James Weinrich, lead them to theorize that gay persons underwent a partial form of sexual differentiation in the womb.

What follows is taken from the essay, "Homosexuality and Biology" by Chandler Burr (The Atlantic magazine, June 1997). As foetuses, human beings start out with complete female and male "precursors" of the genitals - vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes for women; vas deferens, seminal vesicles, and ejaculatory ducts for men. These organs are called the Mullerian ducts in females and the Wolffian in males. An embryo gets its chromosomal sex at conception, which determines whether it will develop testes or ovaries. In females, the sexual organs develop without any help from hormones; the Wolffian duct simply shrivels up. With males, however, the process is more complex as they need two kinds of hormones: androgens from the testes to prompt the Wolffian duct into development, and the inhibiting Mullerian hormone to defeminise the male foetus. Pillard's rational deduction is that the Mullerian hormone, or its analogue, may have brain-organizing effects and if enough of it is not produced to prevent the brain from defeminising, the result would be "psychosexual androgyny." Gay men, then, are males with biologically induced female aspects, and vice versa for lesbians. This view is corroborated by the findings of other scholars - Richard Green, Simon LeVay, Robert Goy - whose research shows that boys "who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play are often gay." Such gender-atypical play as dressing in women's clothes, playing with dolls, or taking the role of the mother is believed to indicate a homosexual orientation up to 75% of the time. What is striking about this research is that sex-atypical behaviour can be induced or reversed with hormonal manipulation in animals at the prenatal stage. No doubt, this is a promising line of scientific inquiry into the cause of homosexuality.

I had promised to also discuss the question whether homosexuality is a sin, an illness, a lifestyle choice or a crime. That must now wait till the concluding essay where I will focus on the theme of sex, sexuality and power. I shall also visit the tendency across cultures of reactions to same-sex relations to be deeply visceral and atavistic in nature.



1
Re: Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible
Gadagada posted on 12-28-2011, 06:23:01 AM
He believes those authors whom he never met but does not believe the bible for the same reason, little wonder he understood the book more that the bible he never believed in. The most sensible thing to do is to argue his point drawing analogy with his book not the bible that he didn't understand.
Animals don't do gay because it isn't sensible and natural; if it were biological we will have these anomalies in the genetic make up of animals....much grammar no sense!
Re: "Homosexuality and Nigeria's Enochs and Josephs" and "Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible"
Beacon unlimited posted on 12-29-2011, 09:32:05 AM
Mr Ifowodo, I read with equal parts amusement and chagrin your two essays on the much debated anti-homosexual marriage bill presently being debated by our lawmakers. An opponent of homosexual relations myself, I was naturally torn between my principles and the need to honor and respect the choice(s) of the next man even if it was something abhorrent to me and the main reason for my abhorrence is: "Homosexuality is such a perversion of the natural order of things as we know it that it heralds a very steep descent into moral decadence. Other perverts who heretofore have been afraid of displaying their shocking proclivities will suddenly be emboldened and then they'll have a field day competing (Rihanna and Lady Gaga style) to see who has the most depraved taste. What else are we to prepare for? Rapists rights bill, murderers' Act, National referendum of Nigerian serial killers? I am sure the low level of sexual depravity in Nigeria today is seen by you as a sign of a backward nation whose populace is not posh enough to flow with the current trends in world occurrences".
But after reading your essays which were so quick to arbitrarily castigate EVERYONE who ever had a concern against such a pernicious initiative I was dismayed at the copious number of untrue assumptions, generalizations and interpretations you included just so your views could be aired. I say it is gross abuse of your privilege as a respected and acclaimed author towards your undiscerning readership that you based the bedrock of most of your arguments on semantics, nuances of literature and not a little fact-twisting (dangerously close to outright falsehood in some cases) instead of hard facts. Below are some glaring errors in your write-ups that an author of your repute should really not be making at this level.


Excerpts from the first essay: Homosexuality and Nigeria's Enochs and Josephs
(Monday Dec 19 Pg. 67 of The Guardian Newspaper)

The first is quoted below:
....... "Those feverishly engaged in this diversionary moral warfare claim to be acting on behalf of an omnipotent God. The promise of rewarding everyone, homosexuals included, according to their deeds on the judgment day is not enough for them. God is either too slow or too liberal or cannot be trusted."

Response:
These "men of God" do not merely "claim" to be acting on God's behalf; they're INDEED acting as is conduits (God speaks his mind through his vessels/servants). Just as the fact that the government passes laws against over-speeding does not mean it MUST be her exclusive preserve to enforce such laws such that everyone else MUST LEAVE THE NEXT man to do as he likes on the road just because of civil rights. Over-speeding in itself is not a crime against other road users (just like homosexuality in itself is not a legal crime against the society) but the potential it harbors for undermining their safety and well being is what makes it undesirable, hence, the legislations against it. Just because God is merciful enough to set the Day of Judgment so far off does not mean his rules MUST be flouted at every opportunity because of the free will he gave each person even to the point of embarrassing, mortifying, inconveniencing and disgusting other people.

The second is as follows:
....."By the same token, Christ or God-the-son, founder of the faith that they profess is not to be heeded when he declines to rank sin or when he commands his followers thus; "Judge not that ye be not judged" warning that only the heavenly father who sees the innermost of hearts is fit for that office. Besides "all our righteousness are like filthy rags."

Response:
When you quote a book or work, it is supposed to be at least with some sort of preliminary knowledge into the circumstance(s) or genesis of the occurrence you are quoting. Jesus said "do not judge others (Christians) or condemn as doomed to eternal damnation without hope of respite anyone who does not follow your teachings (sinners), rather, invite them continually in love and kindness to change their ways". NOT "BEND OVER BACKWARDS to accommodate them, compromise your principles to make them happy, encourage in all way EVERYTHING they do and then HOPE for a change." No sir! He did not.
As to the heavenly father who sees the innermost hearts being the only one fit to judge, that only applies to people (ostensible Christians) whose outward works do not go against God's sacrosanct teachings. Other Christians should beware of discrimination against or marginalization of anyone who falls into this category just because of inane conventions like the color of their skin, how many times they pray daily, how often they give alms, how much they give in church etc. It is written in the scriptures "by their fruits ye shall know them." If you exhibit such reprehensible and deplorable acts such that it is clear to even the most undiscerning of animals, I think it is safe to say there is nothing left to "judge" unjustly because your "rotten fruits" are there for all to see.

The third:
......"Does Akinola ever humble himself enough to acknowledge that he may not fully know the will of God or understand nature and that unless he claims to be without sin, it is not in his place to exact vengeance on any "sinner"? By criminalizing a private consensual act between adults, thereby denying fellow human beings the fundamental rights to freedom of association, expression and the pursuit of happiness."

Response:
It is written in the scriptures; "ye shall know the truth, and it shall set you free." SO, YES! IT IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO KNOW GOD'S MIND! Akinola is not exacting vengeance on sinners, he is merely literarily following christ's footsteps when he took whips and chased out the merchantmen in the temple.
And as to the human rights part, how is criminalizing aiding and abetting a murderer as a conspiracy to murder or the term "consorting with known criminal elements" not in effect denying human beings their rights to freedom of association? Are we to assume that these are further infringements to conspirators' basic rights too? Does an individual have carte blanche in his pursuit of happiness? Must it not be done within the bounds of reason and societal laws (both legal and customary)?

The fourth:
........"What does Akinola and his fellow biblical literalists think is the real lesson of Christ in that challenge to those early militia of God who would stone an adulteress to death: "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"

Response:
The issue of Rev Akinola and his proselytes being self-righteous is the lesson here? You would have us believe NO ONE can lay a claim to absolutely abstaining from wrongdoing? This is a very perfidious fallacy! The scriptures quoted many prophets (including Jesus Christ himself) as saying "be ye holy and blameless" in several instances before now telling of how the death of Jesus and the subsequent indwelling of the holy spirit in Christians will make such a life easy. Just because it seems inconceivable to the (corruptible) nature of the normal man does not make it absolutely impossible.
If you check the bible well, you will find that it is written ; the scriptures are given by inspiration of God and the ways of god are hidden to the wise men of the world and their wisdom. Ergo, if you are NOT a bible-believing Christian, YOUCANNOT LAY ANY CLAIM TO INSIGHT OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, literal or otherwise! So do not presume to interpret the bible better than men who are called the anointed servants of a God you doubt and disdain so much.

The fifth was:
".....Those who cannot wait for God's judgment MUST remove themselves from the secular world inhabited by the rest of us non-believers and liberal Christians alike."

Response:
Perhaps this is the greatest of all your gaffes. Whereas up till now, you had been striving (albeit with great difficulty) to portray yourself as an objective pacifist who had not taken any sides other than to sue for tolerance, inclusivity and forbearance, this closing statement shows you as a potential beneficiary and stakeholder who has a 100% vested interest in the passage of the gay-marriage bill. You could not restrain your partisan intentions when you made this prejudiced comment. How are we supposed to reconcile your grievances about the gay marriage prohibition bill not allowing freedom of expression and association and your condemnation of the proponents as bigots and dictators when you have shown that even from your much publicized "subjugated" position, you still will segregation and exclusion of anyone who opposes your ideas or beliefs? How does this fit in with the total inclusivity, live-and-let-live mantra you have been yapping about all along?

Homosexuality, Biology and the bible.
Pg. 52, The Guardian Newspaper, Wednesday December 28, 2011

In Paragraph 2:
You said you were accused of having lost your entire claim to being a human rights advocate. I find that claim hard to fault. As a human rights advocate, are you not supposed to be impartial and dispassionate about the issue while presenting your arguments in the most objective of manners? In this case where you have so despotically pitched your tents with the gay community even to the extent of ridiculing and belittling the entire belief system of a whole people, and impugning the character of venerable custodians of such beliefs, what claim do you now lay to a better code of conduct/moral standard when your response is as bad, if not even worse than the provocateurs'.

In Paragraph 3:
You said "just because homosexuals have their strong hormonal urges that they cannot help, it makes it okay for them to be indulged". Well, we might as well legalize serial killing, raping, kleptomania and any other desire driven crime for those who are unable to help themselves but feel these desires. In your world,it is okay to be a rapist if you have a hormonal or psychological imbalance that makes you want to pervert the natural order of sexual intercourse!

Paragraph 4:
You said "science has proved beyond doubt that human life are not under ten thousand years old". I must confess, it is with a lot of disappointment I read each subsequent line of this essay. (the initial promise of a brilliant, objective expository by an analytic academic mind is replaced more starkly with each line by the ramblings indicative of a man blinded by anger, hate and vengeance so much he'll resort to anything to even scores, even calumny and fact-twisting). Saying science has proved ANYTHING "beyond any doubt" is at best childish. It ranks of what one just being indoctrinated in science would say (much like a 4-year old kid in his elementary science class). Science at best aims to study occurrences and TRY (keyword: TRY!!!)TO ESTABLISH a pattern from which an initial or TENTATIVE ASSUMPTION/THEORY is made. These are SUBSEQUENTLY TRIED TO BE PROVEN over a LONG period of time through a series of SUBJECTIVE TESTS. This is why science is NEVER ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE! There are just too many variables, and in a debate as age-long as evolution, science does not even come close to explaining ACCEPTABLY the theory of creation much less CONCLUSIVELY! If in doubt read up more on the "big bang theory" of creation (which is the bed-rock of scientific theories of evolution, adaptation, natural selection etc.), what caused it? What caused whatever it was that caused it? The particle that imploded and exploded to cause the big bang, what created it? It has been said that perhaps it's science's own way of acknowledging God in a roundabout manner. Do not just assume you write for an ignorant reader-base who'll take your word for absolute truth.


Also, your question on the origin of pride sounds a bit naïve from a professed academic and civil rights advocate. Surely you know what freewill means? Right from the first encounter of God with man in the same bible you quoted conveniently and extensively in your two essays, it is spelled out that GOD WILL ALWAYS give you a CHOICE between two options after telling you the likely repercussions of your potential choice. It is written over and over and over in the bible (although I am still bemused at how you so conveniently did not see it) that the choice is yours between good and evil. Pride is just like your basic urge to fart in public. It is neither good nor bad when it is still that, JUST AN URGE! It is as basic as your natural urge to eat. But when you succumb to the urge and gratify yourself such that in so doing, you make others uncomfortable and disgusted by the sound and smell, then it is bad. When pride comes knocking, it is not evil and you are not evil for having the thought. There are two ways to it as it always is with God, if you suppress it and instead glorify God for whatever ability/endowment you are supposed to be proud of, acknowledging him as the sole instigator. He delights in you and thus, you enjoy from his unquenchable fountain of goodness, even though the basic instinct you started with was the akin to pride. In such respect we may use the oxymoron "good pride" to qualify it (this was God's original plan for it, but he will NEVER force you to toe that line, he'd rather you go down the road yourself). It is when you succumb and gratify yourself in vainglory such that you presume to ascribe to yourself the place of God that your pride becomes a sin unto you? Do try to check the bible you quote so readily in-depth (and possibly find someone who is not as disagreeable to its precepts as you to interpret) before you come out again gun half-cocked and start building your arguments on heresy.

Finally, as to us blacks carrying out a mission civilisatrice and trying to teach the white man his religion back, people with sympathy for the marginalized sexual perverts like you had better offered thanks that we are still not practicing our own traditional religion, you, the mouthpiece alongside all your cohorts and the actual perpetrators would have been drowned with millstones about their necks eons ago.
Re: "Homosexuality and Nigeria's Enochs and Josephs" and "Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible"
Beacon unlimited posted on 12-29-2011, 09:32:17 AM
Mr Ifowodo, I read with equal parts amusement and chagrin your two essays on the much debated anti-homosexual marriage bill presently being debated by our lawmakers. An opponent of homosexual relations myself, I was naturally torn between my principles and the need to honor and respect the choice(s) of the next man even if it was something abhorrent to me and the main reason for my abhorrence is: "Homosexuality is such a perversion of the natural order of things as we know it that it heralds a very steep descent into moral decadence. Other perverts who heretofore have been afraid of displaying their shocking proclivities will suddenly be emboldened and then they'll have a field day competing (Rihanna and Lady Gaga style) to see who has the most depraved taste. What else are we to prepare for? Rapists rights bill, murderers' Act, National referendum of Nigerian serial killers? I am sure the low level of sexual depravity in Nigeria today is seen by you as a sign of a backward nation whose populace is not posh enough to flow with the current trends in world occurrences".
But after reading your essays which were so quick to arbitrarily castigate EVERYONE who ever had a concern against such a pernicious initiative I was dismayed at the copious number of untrue assumptions, generalizations and interpretations you included just so your views could be aired. I say it is gross abuse of your privilege as a respected and acclaimed author towards your undiscerning readership that you based the bedrock of most of your arguments on semantics, nuances of literature and not a little fact-twisting (dangerously close to outright falsehood in some cases) instead of hard facts. Below are some glaring errors in your write-ups that an author of your repute should really not be making at this level.


Excerpts from the first essay: Homosexuality and Nigeria's Enochs and Josephs
(Monday Dec 19 Pg. 67 of The Guardian Newspaper)

The first is quoted below:
....... "Those feverishly engaged in this diversionary moral warfare claim to be acting on behalf of an omnipotent God. The promise of rewarding everyone, homosexuals included, according to their deeds on the judgment day is not enough for them. God is either too slow or too liberal or cannot be trusted."

Response:
These "men of God" do not merely "claim" to be acting on God's behalf; they're INDEED acting as is conduits (God speaks his mind through his vessels/servants). Just as the fact that the government passes laws against over-speeding does not mean it MUST be her exclusive preserve to enforce such laws such that everyone else MUST LEAVE THE NEXT man to do as he likes on the road just because of civil rights. Over-speeding in itself is not a crime against other road users (just like homosexuality in itself is not a legal crime against the society) but the potential it harbors for undermining their safety and well being is what makes it undesirable, hence, the legislations against it. Just because God is merciful enough to set the Day of Judgment so far off does not mean his rules MUST be flouted at every opportunity because of the free will he gave each person even to the point of embarrassing, mortifying, inconveniencing and disgusting other people.

The second is as follows:
....."By the same token, Christ or God-the-son, founder of the faith that they profess is not to be heeded when he declines to rank sin or when he commands his followers thus; "Judge not that ye be not judged" warning that only the heavenly father who sees the innermost of hearts is fit for that office. Besides "all our righteousness are like filthy rags."

Response:
When you quote a book or work, it is supposed to be at least with some sort of preliminary knowledge into the circumstance(s) or genesis of the occurrence you are quoting. Jesus said "do not judge others (Christians) or condemn as doomed to eternal damnation without hope of respite anyone who does not follow your teachings (sinners), rather, invite them continually in love and kindness to change their ways". NOT "BEND OVER BACKWARDS to accommodate them, compromise your principles to make them happy, encourage in all way EVERYTHING they do and then HOPE for a change." No sir! He did not.
As to the heavenly father who sees the innermost hearts being the only one fit to judge, that only applies to people (ostensible Christians) whose outward works do not go against God's sacrosanct teachings. Other Christians should beware of discrimination against or marginalization of anyone who falls into this category just because of inane conventions like the color of their skin, how many times they pray daily, how often they give alms, how much they give in church etc. It is written in the scriptures "by their fruits ye shall know them." If you exhibit such reprehensible and deplorable acts such that it is clear to even the most undiscerning of animals, I think it is safe to say there is nothing left to "judge" unjustly because your "rotten fruits" are there for all to see.

The third:
......"Does Akinola ever humble himself enough to acknowledge that he may not fully know the will of God or understand nature and that unless he claims to be without sin, it is not in his place to exact vengeance on any "sinner"? By criminalizing a private consensual act between adults, thereby denying fellow human beings the fundamental rights to freedom of association, expression and the pursuit of happiness."

Response:
It is written in the scriptures; "ye shall know the truth, and it shall set you free." SO, YES! IT IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO KNOW GOD'S MIND! Akinola is not exacting vengeance on sinners, he is merely literarily following christ's footsteps when he took whips and chased out the merchantmen in the temple.
And as to the human rights part, how is criminalizing aiding and abetting a murderer as a conspiracy to murder or the term "consorting with known criminal elements" not in effect denying human beings their rights to freedom of association? Are we to assume that these are further infringements to conspirators' basic rights too? Does an individual have carte blanche in his pursuit of happiness? Must it not be done within the bounds of reason and societal laws (both legal and customary)?

The fourth:
........"What does Akinola and his fellow biblical literalists think is the real lesson of Christ in that challenge to those early militia of God who would stone an adulteress to death: "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"

Response:
The issue of Rev Akinola and his proselytes being self-righteous is the lesson here? You would have us believe NO ONE can lay a claim to absolutely abstaining from wrongdoing? This is a very perfidious fallacy! The scriptures quoted many prophets (including Jesus Christ himself) as saying "be ye holy and blameless" in several instances before now telling of how the death of Jesus and the subsequent indwelling of the holy spirit in Christians will make such a life easy. Just because it seems inconceivable to the (corruptible) nature of the normal man does not make it absolutely impossible.
If you check the bible well, you will find that it is written ; the scriptures are given by inspiration of God and the ways of god are hidden to the wise men of the world and their wisdom. Ergo, if you are NOT a bible-believing Christian, YOUCANNOT LAY ANY CLAIM TO INSIGHT OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, literal or otherwise! So do not presume to interpret the bible better than men who are called the anointed servants of a God you doubt and disdain so much.

The fifth was:
".....Those who cannot wait for God's judgment MUST remove themselves from the secular world inhabited by the rest of us non-believers and liberal Christians alike."

Response:
Perhaps this is the greatest of all your gaffes. Whereas up till now, you had been striving (albeit with great difficulty) to portray yourself as an objective pacifist who had not taken any sides other than to sue for tolerance, inclusivity and forbearance, this closing statement shows you as a potential beneficiary and stakeholder who has a 100% vested interest in the passage of the gay-marriage bill. You could not restrain your partisan intentions when you made this prejudiced comment. How are we supposed to reconcile your grievances about the gay marriage prohibition bill not allowing freedom of expression and association and your condemnation of the proponents as bigots and dictators when you have shown that even from your much publicized "subjugated" position, you still will segregation and exclusion of anyone who opposes your ideas or beliefs? How does this fit in with the total inclusivity, live-and-let-live mantra you have been yapping about all along?

Homosexuality, Biology and the bible.
Pg. 52, The Guardian Newspaper, Wednesday December 28, 2011

In Paragraph 2:
You said you were accused of having lost your entire claim to being a human rights advocate. I find that claim hard to fault. As a human rights advocate, are you not supposed to be impartial and dispassionate about the issue while presenting your arguments in the most objective of manners? In this case where you have so despotically pitched your tents with the gay community even to the extent of ridiculing and belittling the entire belief system of a whole people, and impugning the character of venerable custodians of such beliefs, what claim do you now lay to a better code of conduct/moral standard when your response is as bad, if not even worse than the provocateurs'.

In Paragraph 3:
You said "just because homosexuals have their strong hormonal urges that they cannot help, it makes it okay for them to be indulged". Well, we might as well legalize serial killing, raping, kleptomania and any other desire driven crime for those who are unable to help themselves but feel these desires. In your world,it is okay to be a rapist if you have a hormonal or psychological imbalance that makes you want to pervert the natural order of sexual intercourse!

Paragraph 4:
You said "science has proved beyond doubt that human life are not under ten thousand years old". I must confess, it is with a lot of disappointment I read each subsequent line of this essay. (the initial promise of a brilliant, objective expository by an analytic academic mind is replaced more starkly with each line by the ramblings indicative of a man blinded by anger, hate and vengeance so much he'll resort to anything to even scores, even calumny and fact-twisting). Saying science has proved ANYTHING "beyond any doubt" is at best childish. It ranks of what one just being indoctrinated in science would say (much like a 4-year old kid in his elementary science class). Science at best aims to study occurrences and TRY (keyword: TRY!!!)TO ESTABLISH a pattern from which an initial or TENTATIVE ASSUMPTION/THEORY is made. These are SUBSEQUENTLY TRIED TO BE PROVEN over a LONG period of time through a series of SUBJECTIVE TESTS. This is why science is NEVER ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE! There are just too many variables, and in a debate as age-long as evolution, science does not even come close to explaining ACCEPTABLY the theory of creation much less CONCLUSIVELY! If in doubt read up more on the "big bang theory" of creation (which is the bed-rock of scientific theories of evolution, adaptation, natural selection etc.), what caused it? What caused whatever it was that caused it? The particle that imploded and exploded to cause the big bang, what created it? It has been said that perhaps it's science's own way of acknowledging God in a roundabout manner. Do not just assume you write for an ignorant reader-base who'll take your word for absolute truth.


Also, your question on the origin of pride sounds a bit naïve from a professed academic and civil rights advocate. Surely you know what freewill means? Right from the first encounter of God with man in the same bible you quoted conveniently and extensively in your two essays, it is spelled out that GOD WILL ALWAYS give you a CHOICE between two options after telling you the likely repercussions of your potential choice. It is written over and over and over in the bible (although I am still bemused at how you so conveniently did not see it) that the choice is yours between good and evil. Pride is just like your basic urge to fart in public. It is neither good nor bad when it is still that, JUST AN URGE! It is as basic as your natural urge to eat. But when you succumb to the urge and gratify yourself such that in so doing, you make others uncomfortable and disgusted by the sound and smell, then it is bad. When pride comes knocking, it is not evil and you are not evil for having the thought. There are two ways to it as it always is with God, if you suppress it and instead glorify God for whatever ability/endowment you are supposed to be proud of, acknowledging him as the sole instigator. He delights in you and thus, you enjoy from his unquenchable fountain of goodness, even though the basic instinct you started with was the akin to pride. In such respect we may use the oxymoron "good pride" to qualify it (this was God's original plan for it, but he will NEVER force you to toe that line, he'd rather you go down the road yourself). It is when you succumb and gratify yourself in vainglory such that you presume to ascribe to yourself the place of God that your pride becomes a sin unto you? Do try to check the bible you quote so readily in-depth (and possibly find someone who is not as disagreeable to its precepts as you to interpret) before you come out again gun half-cocked and start building your arguments on heresy.

Finally, as to us blacks carrying out a mission civilisatrice and trying to teach the white man his religion back, people with sympathy for the marginalized sexual perverts like you had better offered thanks that we are still not practicing our own traditional religion, you, the mouthpiece alongside all your cohorts and the actual perpetrators would have been drowned with millstones about their necks eons ago.
Re: Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible
Borjie posted on 01-03-2012, 12:33:12 PM
Go to www.wikipedia.org and type in "Homosexuality in animals" I believe the information there will make you wiser
Re: Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible
Borjie posted on 01-03-2012, 12:33:17 PM
Go to www.wikipedia.org and type in "Homosexuality in animals" I believe the information there will make you wiser
Re: Homosexuality, Biology And The Bible
Borjie posted on 01-03-2012, 12:52:30 PM
After reading some of the comments here, my previous opinions were confirmed. The greatest problem we face is ignorance. Unlike the beautiful article by Ogaga, most of his critics argue blindly and ignorantly, citing the Bible after each word as if they co-wrote it. Someone once wrote that the lack of homosexual behaviour among animals is proof of its wrongness.To this contributor i say; go to wikipedia and type in "Homosexuality in animals". I do believe the information there will make you wiser.
Another contributor compared homosexuals to rapist, murderers and serial killers. This comparison in itself is the highest form of ignorance. This contributor failed to see that murder and rape aren't concensual, but involve someone hurting or exploiting another person: in other words there is a loser and a gainer, unlike homosexuality which involves the consent of two people: No one is being exploited or hurt in any way.
It is quite sad (and hillarious) to see people quoting the bible when it soothes them. Its quite annoying that the general supposition among most Nigerinas is that homosexuals are the only ones going to Hell. They forget that fornicators (unmarried people, whether gay or straight, having sex) belong to the greatest sinners and will most definitely go to Hell, according to the Bible. Now i find it extremely hard to believe that none of you self-righteous contributors have ever had sex with someone, who isn't your wife or husband. Like i said the problem is IGNORANCE. No wonder its called a dissease.
Biology can explain all of human behaviour
Mutti posted on 01-04-2012, 11:56:55 AM
We are all a bunch of organic material periodically fired by neurons and hormones that result in the way that we behave, including in fact intense spirituality. Did a hospital in the United Kingdom not announce to the world a few years ago that they had found the location of the human soul?

Yet acknowledging our organic and chemical composition, in all spheres of life we still condition ourselves to a framework of behaviour that has been set by society. Most societies of the world set standards for behaviour determined by the good of the greater number and longer term survival of the race. The mantra that puts the self first and above all else in the world is a fairly recent and very American phenomenon. Even within that, there are limits. America, permissive as they are will not allow a Rambo to roam wild picking off unsuspecting victims at whim. Even if that pastime is the result of misfiring of neurons and hormones, occasioned at birth as is so often the case in serial killers.

America and other western societies are very vociferous in putting a stop to sex with minors as they call it just because it offends their sensibilities. They stand toe to toe with many other societies in the world whose culture allows and sometimes promotes marriage to young girls and whose initiation rites for boys into adulthood include sodomy. They hold these acts up to the world as heinous! The desirability of these acts within cultures finds its origins in the hormones and neurons fired to appropriate effect to elicit desires for young people.

Kleptomania or plain thievery, a disease rumoured to have affected a beloved royal for all that is not excused as the result of biology even when proved as such by science. It is the reason many otherwise innocent citizens wallow in jail or have their limbs chopped depending on what part of the world they find themselves.

The urge to eat human flesh - a justifiable urge given our basal instincts as animals - if played out will earn the perpetrator life in a maximum security prison for the insane or death by lethal injection. Even simple urges that result in you slapping your wife silly or slipping a few granules of poison in your husband's meal is never looked on with benevolence. In spite of common understanding that instincts, driven by hormones and wrongly fired neurons as they are turn humans into mere automaton obedient only to bio-chemicals.

So to resist these natural instincts the human being is subjected to years of conditioning and regimentation, getting up each morning to go to work even when all you would like to do is doss down and just let the world roll by. Saying please and thank you and gritting your teeth against all provocations from prats who think that science justifies every ill. Resisting the urge to drive that fool off the next cliff just because they cut you off in fast moving traffic. Not jumping every female or boning every man that catches your fancy right there in the street or wiping every Negro person off the face of the earth since they don't make the mark for humanity.

All these are responses to natural human instincts but we do not indulge them and for those who do the punishment is swift and stiff to send a lesson to other who might be wanting to cross the line drawn by society next time. Ask mothers who have spent countless sleepless nights trying to soothe the colicky baby whether the thought of dashing the wriggly thing's head against the wall or smothering it with a pillow never crossed their minds. Apes and dogs kill off their babies for less, but human mothers swallow the instincts for fear of nothing but what society will say.
1
Please register before you can make new comment