Guardian

THE recent signing into law of a gay marriage bill by the French President, Mr Francois Hollande, and the passage of an anti-gay legislation by our own House of Representatives have framed the issue of homosexuality once more in terms of for and against. Hardly would any other aberration, say paedophilia, claim the kind of successes the gay/lesbian lobby has recorded in having its marginal tendency forced into the mainstream of society’s consciousness. Western civilisation is at a decadent cusp whereby godly precepts are being upturned and satanic ones brazenly enforced.

Many sympathisers to the homosexual mutation like to argue that the social aberration could have been induced by biology at embryonic stages of life. The jury on the biological or natural origins of homosexuality is yet out. But whenever science chooses to come out with its conclusions, it will only line up with the word of God at best. If we accept for the sake of polemics that homosexual tendency is a question of which hormones were over-produced or repressed at some point in the development of the embryo, what does it change concerning the word of God? Nothing. The biblical locus classicus on the matter is in the first book of Romans. There in verses 26 and 27, it says that: “For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is   unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” The “cause” being referred to at the beginning of the passage is about those who reject God and worship the creature instead of the Creator even when they know better. Does it not amaze us that majority of lesbians and gay men today still remain atheists, agnostics and free thinkers? Now, the logical question that flows from this is: What if these ones were predisposed by biology from birth to have the homosexual tendency?  The answer is that even biology and our genes are subject to God who tells the Prophet Jeremiah that “Before l formed thee in the belly, l knew thee.” The next logical question to be expected will be: Why would God give an innocent foetus the tendency for homosexuality and turn around to condemn it? Here, it is necessary to say that there is nothing like “innocent child.” Innocence only relates to the life history of a human, which we ordinarily reckon from the day of delivery. But life does not start from the date of birth and this misconception, which neonatal imaging technology has confined to the archives is at the foundation of the Pro-choice campaigners in abortion. Though re-incarnation is not a mainstream Christian doctrine, the Scriptures are replete with oblique references to it. If God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived in the belly, it stands to reason that the foetal Jeremiah was not a human tabular rasa. What if this experienced foetal “Baba kekere” had spurned God before and acquires the homosexual tendency in retribution at conception, how is he innocent?

What science has been able to establish is that at some point in its development, the embryo has both male and female tendencies in the Wolffian or Mullerian ducts. It is the further greater development of the one and the corresponding recession of the other that determines who becomes male or female. However situations arise that the hormones malfunction and are not able to achieve a clear winner in terms of gender. Conventional wisdom dubs this an accident of biology but does the Almighty say so? Science may therefore exhaust all the research under the sun on Mullerian and Wolffian ducts and hormones, it will never be able to make the connection about how and why some embryos catch the homosexual hormones and others don’t. But the word of God, which is always ahead of science, has given us the answer which science is searching for. It was much the same scenario with the shape of the earth, which cost science much in research and human lives before it came to realise that “It is he (He) that sits upon the circle of the earth.”

Even if one were minded to disbelieve the scriptural explanation of the origins of homosexuality, the contemporary evidence of most of them being atheists and agnostics proves that. Though we are far from living in a theocracy, those that are caught up in the other sins like stealing, lying and adultery are a mixed multitude of humanity. On the other hand, the homosexual group is almost exclusively peopled by the proselyte/atheist/agnostic types. These are haters of God whom the Almighty has allowed to reap their just desserts.

In the 2012 US presidential election campaigns, support for and against same sex marriage was a topical issue. But the gay lobby so intimidated the aspiring candidates that none dared openly express their opposition except after opting out of the race. Yet if a poll were to be conducted, the percentage of American gay and lesbian population may not be up to 10 per cent of the whole. But by trying to be civilised, the saner majority of the population has allowed the aberrant minority to intimidate it into self-censorship. Initially too, the US military in appeasement to the gay lobby adopted a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. This half way house has been hewn down by the inexorable gay lobby that today, homosexuals have been granted the freedom to wantonly advertise their aberration in the army. As a disciplined group, this licentiousness will greatly imperil esprit de corps and impair the army’s ability to cohere in battle situations. In a platoon, a male corporal may be the homosexual “wife” of the commanding officer. How can the unit fight well?

The insidious move to mainstream homosexuality is creeping across the world. Here, it makes a subtle move, there, an audacious one. But everywhere it is the benign lethargy of the silent majority that provides acquiescence and legitimises this ascendance and tyranny of the minority. In the interval since the Nigerian Senate decision, an orchestrated whispering campaign has been going on to brand the supporters of the Senate decision as intolerant, homophobic, bigoted and un-civilised. With the latest concurrence by the House of Representatives, coming in the pejorative shadows cast by the French example, such campaign is bound to gain traction. The issues involved in the debate revolve around how the larger society should relate with deviants. Are social deviants to be sanctioned, tolerated or encouraged and allowed to over-awe the majority? Should the minority be indulged to, not only have its say but its way? Between one man who eats meat and dozens for whom meat is poison, whose human rights should society uphold? The answers to these questions are necessary for constructing a roadmap to the matter of handling homosexual adherents. While cannons of faith condemn the practice, it will not be the only thing condemned by morality but flourishing today. Morality is against stealing, adultery, drunkenness and a lot more. Why is the case of homosexuality more egregious and emotive?

In attempting to answer the question, we must make a distinction between an evil that is in permissive existence and one that is actively encouraged. Adultery is condemned by all faiths but nonetheless exists, even flourishes. But it is a different thing altogether for people to come together under a “Union of Adulterers” and poke their banners in the face of society. That is what homosexuals are doing. It is not sufficient that they have chosen a lifestyle that is abhorred by the majority; they now want that majority to validate and celebrate it. They hinge their campaign on tolerance, liberalism and human rights. Pray, is it not an invasion of my own human rights to force me to adopt your choice against my will? While a secret infringement of society’s moral code may be tolerated for not being openly known, it is a different thing when deviants embark on a brazen campaign to mainstream marginal counter cultures. This is what many lesbians and homosexuals have done seeking instead to victimise the moral majority if possible. Western society and cultures have indulged this tyranny of the minority to their hurt and peril. The popular case of Roe V Wade in which abortion was legalised across the United States in 1973 readily comes to mind. Two decades after the judgment, the woman who was the plaintiff, Ms Norma McCorvey, has recanted her position and instituted another suit to overturn the judgment. She has renounced her lesbian status and become a Roman Catholic and Pro-life campaigner. Is this the kind of demonised advocacy that advocates of same-sex marriage wish for Nigeria?

Mike Ekunno writes from Abuja.