FEATURE ARTICLE

Douglas AkuniaFriday, February 28, 2014
ogo0708@sbcglobal.net


ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE
TO YOUR FRIENDS

NATURE'S CREATION: REJOINDER TO CHIMAMANDA ADICHIE

advertisement

Douglas Akunia ogo0708@sbcglobal.net Nature's Creation: Rejoinder to ChimamandaAdichie Since the Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan boldly and courageously signed the bill that banned homosexuality and same sex marriage against the western pressure, the debate is still raging especially on the internet. I actually thought I was done with this debate since it is now a done deal. I had done all the debate on this when the bill itself was being debated at the house and senate as well as when it was going on in the US. Then someone sent me a write up by Chimamanda Adichie for my opinion and I felt compelled to respond. Let me say upfront that gay people are some of the nicest people around. Usually they are the fashion trend setters and they are usually very talented and that's why there are so many of them in Hollywood and entertainment industry.

Chimamanda Adichie is indeed a very talented and a brilliant writer. I have read some of writings and I have even watched her speak. We can only be very proud of such talent. She is also entitled to her opinion as a human being, that is a fundamental right. Having said that, all that talent does not mean that she is someone that can speak for me on very serious issues. Just like Hollywood celebrities, the judgment is usually not one that one should go by. Not even Einstein who married his cousin and saw nothing wrong with that.

Chimamanda in her article saw nothing wrong with being gay and gay marriage, fine her opinion. Instead she thought that Nigeria is the one with problems for outlawing both. I disagree. It is rather an insult on Nigerians for her to say that it is all because of the Bible. I am going to deal with both gay and gay marriage separately and I am going to try to use logic and leave religion out of it because that usually throws some people off because not everyone has the same religion.

First of all, she faults Nigeria's ban on homosexuality as not being democratic. That is nonsense because democracy is really that which is most good for most people. Most people in Nigeria perceive homosexuality as not being good for them. Yes, the minority right has to be protected but that does not mean that the minority opinion should carry. I can only agree that the punishment is too severe for being yourself. She said a crime is a crime for a reason which is that it has victims. In other words, no harm no crime. That also is not true. There are victims here because indeed, most if not all pedophiles are gay. In my high school, a senior boy raped a junior boy and she says there is no victim? That was my first time most of us in that school heard that word, 'homosexual'. They shouldn't have been in the same dorm, sharing the same bathroom. Gay boys should be removed from the kids of the same sex as much as possible.

Promoting homosexuality also tells the children that it is ok to express yourself and be yourself and do what you like and that there should be no inhibitions. That is the acultural American and now Western European way. There has to be inhibitions in life or else mankind will spin out of control. There are also victims even when there is no crime, at least in the eyes of man. A crime is anything that a society decides is a crime, victim of not. There is no victim when for example a single man goes and gets an escort service (prostitute), of course one that is old enough and in sound judgment and knows what they are doing, perhaps trying to make money to go to that law school. But if a particular society outlaws that, it becomes a crime even if the man protected himself.

Note that I said promotion of homosexuality. What two consenting adults do in their privacy is really their business and I will not judge, but keep it there especially if the society frowns at it as bad for them. That is why Russia got it right by banning gay marriage as well as gay parades and public promotion of it saying that it is harmful to children, the west can keep tearing up their draws all they want. I wouldn't take my kids to San Francisco. Go there and you would be very disgusted at what these people do in the open. It is like going to Brazil or New Orleans on Mardi gras where people just indulge as the name suggests. Go to a gay club or gay bar, I once had a gay boss who always told some of us what they did. Disgusting, they are out of control with their promiscuity. Ask someone who went to studio 54 in New York in the seventies and that was why disco music which was perceived as gay music died the way it did. I digress.

Chimamanda tells a story of Sochukwuma to make her case for acceptance. I will tell my own story as well. I have a friend whose son at five years old, came home and said daddy, I am gay. His dad said what does that mean, he said I don't know. He asked him where he heard that from, he said at school, someone told him that. As he grew up, he often told his dad that some students called him gay and other names at school because of the way he acted and talked. His father told him not to listen to them and assured him that he was not gay provided he did not see him playing with dolls and wear girly clothes. His father said that if he did, he would have given up and accepted it but he didn't. As he grew up, he kept assuring him and always reminded him that he was a boy, to be a man, often correcting the way he talked and acted. He tried to harden him up and no loose hands and well pronounced 'S's and 'T's. When he was a teenager he often jokingly asked him about girls and girlfriends. The boy eventually grew up to be a normal man that now dates girls and enjoys nature's creation, although he is still a bit soft. The school, and society can be brutal alright but the parents have to be involved. Now if the child was truly gay and not made gay, he should be loved none the less and prayed for. It is not his fault though some have said it is a learned habit. I don't think it is a learned habit though the western society is pushing those who are not sure of themselves towards that.

Some have argued that homosexual or whatever sex is natural like traditional sex. I disagree and one only has to look at a woman's physique, where and how everything is, it is made for a man and for carrying babies. You can call it sex objects, sex goddess or sexually attractive, though we are supposed to look at them as more than just that but it is made to make a man's nature come alive and vice versa. Everything is purposely positioned for the opposite sex and not for the same sex. Women put on lipstick, paint their nails and dress and move the way they do, even the way dance and shake some shakable things, all designed to enrage the hormones of men. Same with how some men are or some of things men do, all designed to attract women.

When a man looks at a beautiful well-endowed woman, godly looking with all the curves and contours that would turn men's heads, and instead goes for another man, something is wrong with him. He is not wired properly and same with women. There has to be some disorder in the wiring. It is like a magnet where opposite poles attract and like poles repel. When opposite is the case, something is wrong with that magnet, the ions in the poles are not complete, if I remember my chemistry correctly. Same thing with humans and I am not talking about boarding school kids who are playing with each other. Gay people are now being told that they are normal, they are not. Something is wrong with them but since it is not their fault, they were born that way, they can be forgiven and accepted and loved like everyone but not the act which they should keep to their own privacy if they must exercise it.

Now that does not mean gay marriage should be allowed. If a society decides that it is ok, it is their business and any that says it is not ok, it should be their choice too. Even in the US, most people still don't think it is ok but these smart agenda pushing lawyer have used liberal courts to force it on everyone saying it is unconstitutional. I disagree with these courts and the supreme court of the US has not ruled on the constitutionality of it. It is just that the gay movement has friends and allies in the California governor's office and attorney general's office as well as the white house who refused to defend the law and the Supreme Court decided that those challenging the law did not have the right to do so. Also defense of marriage act violated states' rights. It is a local state matter. The liberals and the media are now falling all over themselves with the acceptance of this. These days if a celebrity comes out of the closet, he is celebrated by the white house, wow. NBA and NFL and others scramble to sign them, even if for just one game, just to be in history books to have broken barriers. Any one that opposes it is all of a sudden called shocking, outrageous and other names to make one think they have been living in a cave. This is all to force it on everyone. For other countries they call it a human rights issue. I will argue that it is neither a constitutional violation nor a human rights issue. It would be if one is told you cannot marry because you are gay but no one is told that. The issue is whom you marry and every society has a right to decide that or to put any restrictions on who one marries. Example, a society can say you cannot marry your parent or sibling, or that one is too young, or that one is already married and cannot take another. Same thing with same sex. If a society decides inbreeding is Ok for them, marry your family member, which is probably next, marry your dog who cares, well that is their business. Some people are already pushing men- boy relationships and some people are having sex with their parents and siblings and even with their pet animals. The slippery slope is already on.

"I wasn't aware that heterosexuals had to be married to have kids. Nor was I aware that my husbands and mines legal marriage here in California would cause all my neighbors to get divorced. My husband is a Marine veteran who fought to defend our Constitution that guarantees equal protection, and the right to freedom to improve our lives and our son's life. Our son couldn't be any happier living with us. This scare tactic of theirs is so out dated."

This was written by a man, believe it or not.

So Chimamanda is wrong, there are victims in a society embracing homosexuality and gay marriage, the entire society itself to start with. It promotes decadence and a culture of anything goes. It promotes the agenda of gender neutrality. What a man can do, a woman can do, and there is no difference between the two. If a man can marry a woman, a woman can marry a woman too. It reduces the meaning and significance of marriage. It reduces the value of marriage to just paper work for benefits purposes where marriage is just an expression of love between two people. In Africa and most other places it is not so. Yes love is important but it is just an emotion that can disappear one day that is why divorce rate is out of the roof and you see husbands that are caught up in this western mess killing their wives. Marriage in Africa and other places still has a more fundamental meaning.

Obama went to Africa and tried to promoteor impose same sex marriage on them, I am sure he wouldn't try it again based on that experience. Africa has the right to choose what they think is good for them. Africa and Nigeria in particular led the revolt against the Church of England over ordination of gay pastors. The Church of England by the way has now joined the Catholic Church and orthodox Church to say no to gay marriage, despite the nonsense the British prime minister or Obama for that matter talks. What happens if the gays marriage is overturned, you overturn your own too. Africa is just supposed to do what America and Europe want and not seek what is in their interest?

What should marriage be all about? Well in the early days, before civilization, people were barbaric and uncivilized, behaving like dogs and bitches and other animals. You do who like, by seduction or by rape. People wandering around, see a girl, you like, you grab her and do your thing and move on. A wandering woman could see a man she likes, she feels like it, seduce him too and have your way. The women got pregnant with no fathers around. With development, people started living together as families and then settlements and communities. It served every one's purpose. The women would have the children while the men would protect them and hunt to provide for them. But there were still territorial fights when another wandering man would come and go after the women. That is when people started getting married, that is to claim one to be theirs for the purpose of family structure. That came with civilization. Things became organized, people started to know who they are, son of so-so and so, daughter of so-so and so. One can now follow their linage to know who they are, and no more inbreeding.

Marriage is therefore primarily for procreation and raising a family in an organized and secured family structure for the survival of a race or people. If one didn't know the other person is a sibling and then they mate, that might result in in- breeding which contributes to extinction. Marriage is the joining of complimentary parts to make whole. If one has an item labeled part A and another labeled part B and the instruction says join them together to assemble. The two parts have to match with all their contours to match. Same parts will not match. Two parts labeled A would not do it. That's it. Now, some people have argued that with changing times, things including purposes and definitions have to change as well. The truth doesn't change. If it were for the purpose of benefits or just companionship, civil unions would do. But the gay movement wants to use the marriage issue to force everyone to accept their lifestyle. There lies the problem.

To paraphrase someone on the internet, homosexuals are already advancing the argument that fathers and mothers are interchangeable and that the absence of one or the other is of no consequence. Therefore there is no particular need for a single parent to marry the father or mother of the child to provide gender complementarity every child needs and deserves. Such denial is what is actually an abuse of human rights, just like abortion. Again I digress.

Moral decadence, single parenthood and now a total destruction of marriage is bringing back those barbaric days. That is the harm. The circle is getting complete. As for Nigeria, the ban is in order. I only wish that it be amended for more leniency on the act between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home but reinforce the public display and marriage even with stricter penalties. These are my thoughts on this and I did not even use religion as promised.

advertisement
IMAGES IN THE NEWS