Last month, th US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the US Government would seek to “press” Nigeria to repeal the law against same-sex marriage enacted by former President Goodluck Jonathan’s government in January 2014. She said the Obama administration has placed the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community as part of its foreign policy agenda. “As a government, it is one of the highest priorities and strongest values that discrimination against anyone based on their sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong. We believe human rights should be available to everybody,” she said on July 13. “As a policy, we will continue to press the government of Nigeria as well as other governments who have provided legislation against the LGBT community.”
So, what has America got to do with homosexuality? They now say it is a human rights issue. But how? First, it should be accepted that homosexuality is a freely chosen vice; therefore, no homosexual can excuse his decadent behaviour by claiming that he is “born that way.” Second, homosexuality is a contagion that preys on innocent victims, especially the poor and the children; and so it is and remains a menace to society and a clear and present danger. Third, because of Western-aided propaganda, homosexuals have now come out; and after losing their shame, they are now flaunting their depravity everywhere, thereby polluting society.
They claim it is hereditary; it is there in the genes. Then they said it was all the result of aberrations in childhood, an unresolved Oedipus complex or the Electra, according to the new gospel-bearers; or, it might in fact be the result of the interplay of all of these different factors — genetics, hormonal, psychological, environmental, and social.
But the despised and universally condemned sodomy of Sodom and Gomorrah has been replaced by the sexual orientation of modern America; from Foucault’s temporary aberration, it has now graduated into respectable specie. And science has finally liberated man from the shackles of hated religion: so, absolved of all responsibility, man can now do as he pleases and blame genes, childhood, God, or whatever. The new argument has dethroned God and deified science. “Why is it that none of the prophets invented psychoanalysis? Why did it have to wait for a completely godless Jew?” Sigmund Freud, the new secular prophet, asked.
They used to burn them at the stake. Then they decided to look away, especially when it became the pastime of the high and mighty. Then they invented a whole science for it and using the theory of evolution and randomness, the science of genetics and the voodoo of psychoanalysis, they absolved humans of responsibility for the sin of homosexuality. It then became an orientation and now it is a civil right; and the worst human vices are inscribed in law as human rights.
But since the main purpose of marriage is procreation in order to ensure the continuity of the human race, it follows that same-sex couples, who cannot procreate, should not be allowed to marry. Throughout history, the only socially and religiously acceptable sexual conduct has been relationship between members of the opposite sex; therefore sexual relation between same-sex partners is immoral, unethical, and unacceptable. It is a sign of the irrationality and untenability of same-sex marriage that all the arguments in its support can be used to justify bestiality.
Scientific studies have established that children born through in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood grow up with great hunger for parents. Children also need mothers who give emotional security to them; and especially for girls, they give crucial counsel to them while they undergo rapid physical, sexual, and emotional development. They need fathers who alone can moderate tendencies to antisocial behaviour in boys and control sexual promiscuity in girls. In addition, children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to grow up into homoerotic relationships.
This is what the West is now trying to impose on our world. Despite threats by Western powers, some African leaders have been blunt in their criticisms of homosexual conduct. Foremost among these are President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.
Coming across a stall erected by the Association of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe at the 1995 Zimbabwe annual International Book Fair in Harare, President Mugabe exploded, “I find it extremely outrageous and repugnant to my human conscience that such immoral and repulsive organizations, like those of homosexuals, who offend both against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society, should have any advocates in our midst and elsewhere in the world.”
Later, he situated them where they belonged. “It degrades human dignity. It’s unnatural, and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings,” Mugabe said. “What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behaviour and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as Lesbians and Gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!”
And when President Museveni signed the anti-gay law in Uganda, Western countries threatened to cut off aid, and he lashed out at them. “Outsiders cannot dictate to us. This is our country. I advise friends from the West not to make this an issue, because if they make it an issue the more they will lose. If the West does not want to work with us because of homosexuals, then we have enough space to ourselves here,” he said. “Uganda does not need aid.”
But today, the world is called upon to accept the fact of homosexual acts and homosexual relationships as morally okay and the celebration of this conduct as something natural, normal, modern, and even desirable in order to receive aid from the West. Instead of hurrying to the defence of the family, upholding the sacredness of the marriage institution, protecting the dignity of human life, promoting the practice of sexuality within the context of married life — a marriage between man and woman — and mounting fierce and implacable opposition to these so-called same-sex unions, we are once again caught vacillating.
And it is not something that has been accepted even in the nations that are forcing it on us. A Fox News poll found that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 66% to 25% margin. Another Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted in August 2003 found almost 60%, and a Gallup poll found 53%, of Americans supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, with 34% opposing. A Zogby poll conducted the following year found that more than half of all Americans agreed that a constitutional amendment should be passed to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
The West is able to do what it has done because it has already overthrown religious values. We should attach no value to Western opposition to religion in general or even to its aversion to Christianity in particular, fuelled and controlled as it is by unrelenting propaganda by the worldwide homosexual activist movement. Just because America leads the world in technology doesn’t by itself mean it leads it in morality; or because the world needs to copy from their technological advancement doesn’t mean that the world must adopt every one of America’s many (im)moral codes of conduct.
But if science developed in opposition to Church teachings, in our sympathetic ignorance, we recognize this historical opposition to science as the measure by which early Church fathers have departed from the sublime teachings of Jesus Christ (a). Because we believe and affirm that Jesus (a) never preached anything that was, or is, contrary to, or incompatible with, established scientific truths.
It is not impossible that the clash between the Church and science was in part made inevitable by pious interpolations into scripture and by the adoption and defence of a popular cosmology that was without divine sanction, and the general obscurantist attitude of the clerical order to the new men of science.
Neither the encyclicals of those eras, nor the Protestant ethic that developed as a reaction to it; and nor yet even the subsequent fundamentalism of classical Pentecostalism, told the story that science wanted to hear. With the coming of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, the gulf between science and religion only got wider. Thereafter, science took the atheistic route and the door of the hereafter was firmly closed.
But this reaction by the West should on no account be allowed to colour or affect our own attitude to religion, or cause us to accept the conclusions the West reached after its rebellion to the Word of God. If after rebelling against Christianity it arrived at same-sex marriage, why should the rest of the world that is still loyal to God be made to accept this outrage?
But they are able to silence the world with their control of the media, which they utilize to adorn a perversion with the robe of moral blamelessness; they are able to sponsor the passing of a variety of so-called hate-crime laws that disentitle society to the defence of its own values; and they are able to sponsor non-discrimination laws with respect to employment in which they sell their so-called sexual orientation as a valid category for civil rights protection. It is not. Homosexuality is not a category: it is a disease and a sin against God and against the essential nature of the human person. And on this, we should tell President Barack Obama off.