advertisement

LukeAneke@msn.com Westbury, NY, USA

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS

CHRISTIANITY, HOMOSEXUALISM, AND THE BIBLE:
A COMMENTARY ON MR. NWACHUKWU'S "HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A BIBLE AFFAIR" (PART II of II)

advertisement

n the preceding Part I of II of this article, I dealt primarily with the major flaws and inconsistencies in Mr. Nwachukwu’s attacks on the bible. This second and last part will deal predominantly with his attempt to elevate homosexuality to the status of blackness as a color of the black race. As already lamented in Part I of II, Mr. Nwachukwu denied us access to the numerous sources he claimed backed up his assertions and postulations. More than six times in his article, Mr. Nwachukwu stated that "studies have shown" one negative thing or the other about the bible without citing any of those studies that support his assertions, so that they can be subjected to scrutiny. I do not know his real motives for protecting his sources but it seems academically wasteful and intellectually burdensome to level such criticism and yet lack the courage to expose his sources.

Now, regarding homosexuality, Mr. Nwachukwu’s article, "Homosexuality is not a bible affair", had a three-pronged strategy to legitimize homosexualism. The first was to find foundation for homosexualism in African traditional life, using Igbo culture as an example. The second was to ameliorate biblical condemnation of homosexualism by attempting to undermine the bible itself. The third, but not the least, was to hoist homosexuality into a citadel of acceptability, by comparing it to blackness and women’s rights issues. But to the wary and critical eye, these strategies suffer from glaring porosity and profound weakness. Part I of my article dealt with his first two strategies, while Part II deals with his homosexual promotion and apologetism.

Mr. Nwachukwu’s homosexualism campaign and lobby started by telling us that it is a complex issue that science, biology, anatomy and psychology have tried to explain. But no results were given as to their outcome. Then he went on to tell us that there are three divisions of homosexuality:- biological, psychological and sociological. Unfortunately, again, he didn’t tell us if this was his own classification of homosexualism or whether, as his practice was, he was quoting an uncited and unreferenced source. He stated that the second and third groups can be explained "through the experience or environment"- whatever that meant.

Then, Mr. Nwachukwu concentrated on the third group of homosexuals, who he referred to as "biological". Then he said: "In the biological group, the people involved are simply born that way. They do not choose this way of life of their own fancy. It is imposed on them by nature. The Bible simply condemns this way of life but science helps us to grapple with it". Well, I love this recourse to science in the analysis of homosexualism. The bible condemns homosexualism explicitly and I will not take the reader’s time to repeat what others have already said, and said very well. I will, rather, refer those interested in biblical position on homosexualism to the well written article "IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY'S TENETS" by N. H. Ibanga, published in Nigeriaworld.com on September 1, 2003.

Now let’s see what science has to say. When science tells us that people are born a certain way, it usually does not stop there. It usually goes further to tell us why they are born that way. Homosexuals are the only ones where science is purported to say they are born that way without telling us how or why? For instance, when science tells us that homozygous sickle cell patients are born that way, it tells us that, beyond their control, the amino acid, valine was substituted for glutamic acid at the 6th position of the beta-chain of their hemoglobin. When science tells us that Type 1 diabetics are the way they are, it tells us that, beyond their control, they cannot produce endogenous insulin because most of the beta cells in their pancreases have been destroyed by sundry processes.

The same thing goes for the relationship between male sex hormones and male-to-female attraction and female sex hormones and female-to-male attraction. Homosexuality is the only condition where we are told that the aberration is innate and yet no biological explanation is given, and we have to swallow it as a dogma without the benefit of additional inquiry or curiosity as to the biological basis. Homosexuals are born that way, and that’s it! Take it or leave it. If you ask any further question, you’re homophobic, intolerant and anti-homosexual.

Mr. Nwachukwu’s article is titled "homosexuality is not a bible affair". Fine, but whose affair is it? Science cannot explain it, anatomy cannot justify it and the bible roundly condemns it. So, again, whose affair is it? What is the biological cause of homosexualism? The answer is nowhere to be found. Once in a while, they tell us that some parts of the brains of dead homosexuals stain a certain way, but does that tell you anything? Homosexuality has lasted for thousands of years, since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and yet no biological basis has been found for it. Yet, biological bases have been found for much more recent conditions like albinism, cretinism, thalassemia, etc. The failure to find a cause for homosexualism is obviously not due to a lack of resources or brain power as homosexuals are some of the richest, most educated, most powerful and most influential people in the society. The biological basis simply does not exist, and it goes to support the biblical position that God will not create homosexuality, as a natural phenomenon, and turn around and abhorrently condemn it.

In a desperate search for legitimacy and legal affirmation, homosexuals and their apologetics have made a most preposterous and counter-productive mistake:- they have tried to compare homosexuality with blackness, and their struggle with civil rights. But beyond being expectedly offensive to blacks, it borders on degeneracy for anyone to liken homosexuality to blackness and expect to be taken seriously. Mr. Nwachukwu in his piece fell into that trap when he said in part:

"If as a Black African, I argue that homosexuals should not be admitted into my Church because of what they are, will I have a reason to complain when I am refused entrance or treated coldly in a white Church because I am black? If as a black African, I argue that homosexuals should not aspire to leadership positions in the church or that they should remain as mere auxiliary members because of what they are, do I have a reason to complain when whites argue that a black person cannot be a pope or the head of the Anglican Communion just because of race?"

Well, blackness is not a recent phenomenon and its biology is well established. In a simplistic manner, a man or woman is black because he/she has a substance called melanin in his/her skin, which is produced by cells under his/her skin called melanocytes. The melanocytes are regulated by a hormone, MSH (melanocyte stimulating hormone) produced by a part of his/her brain called the pituitary. The black person has absolutely no control over any of these processes that maintain his/her blackness. Then, out of the blues, the homosexual emerges and claims a legitimacy equivalent to blackness.

Well, if homosexuals want to be compared to blacks, biologically, there is nothing wrong with that, if they can establish a comparable biological basis for homosexualism as for blackness. That means that homosexuals must do a minimum of the following:

1. Isolate a biological substance.
2. Characterize that biological substance, e.g. amino acid, peptide, protein, simple carbohydrate, complex polysaccharide, glycoprotein, lipid, nucleic acid or a hitherto unidentified group of compounds.
3. Prove that that substance causes a male-to-male or a female-to-female attraction.
4. Show that the substance exists either exclusively in homosexuals or at a higher concentration than the rest of the population.

Then, and only then, can the biological basis of homosexuality hold any water and warrant any comparism with blackness, gender and other biological dispositions.

In a real sense, those who are forcing the legitimacy of homosexuality down the throats of people, without adequate foundation, are suffering from some measure of myopia. They may think that homosexuality is the only human aberration for which acceptance and legitimacy may be sought, and forget that humans are ever willing to push the confines and outer perimeters of human acceptance. If homosexuality is accepted as a biological legitimacy without adequate biological proof, then the society opens itself up to all sorts of pressure. What stops a man from saying that he is an admitted pedophile, but that his pedophilia is biological and that it should be decriminalized and accepted by society? Can the society say no to his biological claim if other sexual aberrations have been granted biological status without foundation. Or, if a man says he enjoys sex with his sister or mother and claims that his incestuous predisposition is a biological phenomenon and seeks societal acceptance, can the society say no? And how can the society say no to him if homosexuality has been accepted as biological without foundation. These foregoing scenarios may seem unlikely or distant, but, as I have said, there is no limit beyond which people will not go to push the boundaries of acceptance.

In conclusion, the bible is not the only entity with which homosexuality runs afoul. Just as the bible condemns it, science lacks foundation for it and anatomy supports its aberrancy. Incidentally, Mr. Nwachukwu told us, in his piece, that while the bible simply condemns homosexuality, science and anatomy help to explain it. However, he did not tell us what anatomy has to say about it. For the avoidance of doubts, those who are familiar with the human genitourinary system know that the lower rectum and anal canal, where homosexual intercourse takes place, have no anatomical adaptation for mechanical intrusion such as intercourse. That part of the body is a fragile conduit, with only one layer of columnar cells, meant essentially for water re-absorption and fecal transit.

On the contrary, the lower female genital tract, where normal heterosexual intercourse takes place, is anatomically adapted for mechanical activity. Beyond the several pelvic ligaments that hold it in place, it is lined by several layers of mechanically-adapted stratified squamous epithelium and complete circular layers of smooth muscle. These give it hundreds of times more tensile strength and impedance than the fragile lower rectum lined by only one layer of cells. So, just like the bible, anatomy runs counter to homosexualism. Hence, when homosexual sympathizers claim that homosexual activity is supported by anatomy, they are either deliberately misinforming the public or are demonstrating an abject ignorance of the human genital anatomy, histology and physiological adaptation.

Concluded!

Dr. Nnaemeka Luke Aneke, MD, JD lives in Westbury, New York.