This is a short list with brief arguments. Please share your views on the points, challenge mine and refrain from insulting anyone.

Maintaining the purity of African culture: The number of changes African culture has witnessed makes this a laughable argument. If this were a good argument, we would all be visiting shrines instead of churches and mosques, twins would still be killed in certain places, women would not be able to get jobs in some places, etc. And many of us would be ruled by Kings and Queens. The point here is that culture is a dynamic aspect of human interaction. What matters is whether the change is harmful or otherwise. And no one is saying people that are not gay should become gay. What changes is how our culture treats the issue.

And, there was a time when human culture included slave ownership.

Going further, the fact that most of us are heterosexual doesn't negate the existence, functionality or inherent usefulness of other/opposite behavior to others. Determining what should be allowed must then take consideration of whether or not such behavior objectively (rather than subjectively) impacts on others positively or negatively. Additionally, if the behavior affects others negatively, is the impact sufficient to call for a ban?

E.g Should Christians and Muslim ban each other because some of them are offended by other religious doctrines?


Religious Views: If your religion says homosexuality is bad. Then it is bad for you. You however cannot use that to prevent others from engaging in such behavior unless it meets conditions such as the behavior actually causing you harm that cannot be objectively tolerated and causes serious harm to you as a human being. Experience from the west show that LGBT behavior can be tolerated and that such behavior does not negatively harm (in the non-tolerable sense of cultural and behavioral differences) the rest of society objectively especially given that no one is forced to be gay or otherwise. If a gay person forces you to officiate a gay wedding however, you have the right to seek redress as that person is forcing you to go against your beliefs.

If you however use your religion to institute a law that criminalizes LGBT behavior, you are more or less acting like Boko Haram and ISIS albeit in a white collar form, same way stealing and corruption are inherently the same.


Homosexuals can't reproduce: Can you reproduce whilst wearing a condom? Do we ban couples who decide not to (or cannot) have any children from marrying? etc.


Human rights: This especially concerns the aspect of criminalizing gay behavior. Many of us often cry about human rights abuse by dictators, the military and police officers, etc, we also cry about terrorism and genocide but at the end of the day, we are doing the same thing over and over - persecuting others based on subjective rather than objective harm to our own way of life.

If we want to claim our constitutions (African countries) are truly based on principles of human welfare and rights, we must admit given the issues at hand that we are not upholding those principles, at least not with sufficient consideration of what should and should not constitute our welfare and rights.

Op you have a point but I don't get it!





Cheeeeeers

Op, thanks for your points.
The problem is that the average Nigerian has decided to be and to remain inherently ignorant.
No matter how much u try to educate them, they will still not learn.
Historically there were no laws against homosexuality in Africa. Anti-sodomy legislations were brought into Africa by the West.
But here they are beating their chests as the champions of morality.

I just pity this thread sha because the homophobia of Nairaland will find it and pounce on it but I hope you're strong enough to withstand their onslaught.

in case

domopps:
Op you have a point but I don't get it!
Cheeeeeers

You don't have to understand or agree with all of the points. Proceed from any that challenges or agrees with your own view on the topic. I'm also trying to understand the whole issue better by hearing the other side of the argument.

nobilis:
I just pity this thread sha because the homophobia of Nairaland will find it and pounce on it but I hope you're strong enough to withstand their onslaught.

If someone calls me gay (which is the usual go to insult) I won't be offended because its more or less like calling a black man white. I'm not, so its a non issue for me. Any other insult is the cost of participating in any online discussion.

Ignorance and the natural fear of change is to blame here... When people have invested so much time and energy being a certain way it is quite hard for them to see other angles.

shotster50:
Ignorance and the natural fear of change is to blame here... When people have invested so much time and energy being a certain way it is quite hard for them to see other angles.

Agreed, change is always difficult and it is human nature to resist change. How and why we resist any change is however highly important as it determines who we are as opposed to who we say we are. Africans like to talk about Africa being the cradle of civilization yet it seems we subscribe to ignorance and sentiments more often than we subscribe to research and fair debate when it comes to issues that affect human lives.

Indeed we are.. Even more annoying is the fact that for all our make believe morality, we are ho,e to the most oppressive and evil governments.

....

As per your post...

'Additionally, if the behavior affects others negatively, is the impact sufficient to call for a ban? '

I don't get this statement from your post. Are you implying that a behaviour which affects people negatively shouldn't be banned? Explain to me further.

Ha!

Gameaddict! Answer me na!

Edited my post so just answer the question

joywendy:
Gameaddict! Answer me na!
Edited my post so just answer the question

Hello @joywendy, sorry for the late reply.

I was expressing general criteria there for banning objectively harmful behavior. Take the following experience:

We didn't ban public smoking for a long time even though we had already established that smoking was objectively harmful. The question was whether the negative impact of public smoking was high enough to warrant a public ban. (Note, we could also ban smoking altogether but we've determined that the negative impact is not high enough to do so compared to drugs like cocaine).

Do we ban driving of non-solar cars because carbon emission is harmful to people and the environment? Likely, But nobody will ban it now because debates still exist as to the actual extent of the negative impact of burning fossil fuels, the benefits derived and the lack of alternatives to provide those benefits.

On the issue of LGBT rights, I don't think society will arrive at this point till someone can prove that LGBT acts are objectively harmful.

I hope its clear now.

@Post

"Homosexuals can't reproduce: Can you reproduce whilst wearing a condom? Do we ban couples who decide not to (or cannot) have any children from marrying? etc."

This statement you made is not adding up. What has wearing a condom got to do with anything? People who are done having children will wear a condom to avoid further pregnancies. Those not yet ready to become a parent or trying to prevent an STD will wear a condom. Couples who decide not to have children cannot be persecuted because it is better to not have children than to have children and not be able to adequately provide for them. Those suffering infertility should not be discriminated against either because often times, it is not the couple's fault.

However, when it comes to homosexuals and reproduction, it becomes a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Why? Because biologically, an ovum and an ovum CANNOT make a baby likewise, spermatozoa and spermatozoa CANNOT make a baby. Nature did not design it that way. So even if a man and a man should get married, they will never have a baby that carries the DNA of them both like it would have been with heterosexual couples. One of the homosexual men will have to find a woman who will give him an ovum so that his spermatozoa will fertilize it. And then, he and his 'husband' will claim the baby is their child but the child will never carry both their DNA. When the child grows up, he or she will DEMAND for his/her mother because men don't get pregnant. Nature did NOT design it that way.

Lastly, generally speaking, Africans strongly believe in reproduction. Any relationship that is biologically not designed to bear offspring will be shunned hence the backlash homosexuality is receiving on the African continent.

I think Africans should fight gay unions based on religoius belives not some stupid self call culture or morals.we have gays in Africa mind u

dasparrow:
@Post
"Homosexuals can't reproduce: Can you reproduce whilst wearing a condom? Do we ban couples who decide not to (or cannot) have any children from marrying? etc."
This statement you made is not adding up. What has wearing a condom got to do with anything? People who are done having children will wear a condom to avoid further pregnancies. Those not yet ready to become a parent or trying to prevent an STD will wear a condom. Couples who decide not to have children cannot be persecuted because it is better to not have children than to have children and not be able to adequately provide for them. Those suffering infertility should not be discriminated against either because often times, it is not the couple's fault.

Wearing a condom outlines the fact that sex is hardly for reproduction alone. We actively prevent reproduction by wearing condoms, forget about STD's in this case. Meaning us heterosexuals sometimes also want sex for its pleasure and intimacy value and nothing else. I.e sex for reproduction and pleasure can be mutually exclusive even if they can go together. A couple might stay together for 20 years and yet have only 2 kids, meaning 98% of about 1000 sex episodes are merely for pleasure. Heck, millions of people engage in self pleasure daily. That should drive home the point about sex.

On why we shouldn't discriminate against those that don't want children. What about couples that can but simply don't want. Its not always because of of wealth or some bad psychological issue. It is simply a choice made by sane minds.

As to infertility and not being one's fault, this is very funny because it makes me wonder if you've actually considered if most gay people are doing it by choice or were born that way. Sure, they could sleep with women, but does that stop them from being sexually attracted to men or women of the same sex. What are your views on that?

dasparrow:
@Post
However, when it comes to homosexuals and reproduction, it becomes a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Why? Because biologically, an ovum and an ovum CANNOT make a baby likewise, spermatozoa and spermatozoa CANNOT make a baby. Nature did not design it that way. So even if a man and a man should get married, they will never have a baby that carries the DNA of them both like it would have been with heterosexual couples. One of the homosexual men will have to find a woman who will give him an ovum so that his spermatozoa will fertilize it. And then, he and his 'husband' will claim the baby is their child but the child will never carry both their DNA. When the child grows up, he or she will DEMAND for his/her mother because men don't get pregnant. Nature did NOT design it that way.

I guess every heterosexual couple in the world have children that share their DNA. I didn't get the memo saying that despite husbands or wives dying or divorcing, when the remaining spouse remarries, all the children (including existing ones) get the DNA of the new partners. I'm guessing you're living on another planet.

If you're living on this planet however, let me state it to you loud and clear. There are millions of kids born of heterosexual couples that will never share the same DNA with those who will care for them. We call them orphans, abandoned, unwanted, etc. There are millions of kids who live with one parent alive or divorced and will only share the DNA of that one parent regardless of how many times that single parent remarries. These cases outline the fact that the most important thing for those children is having someone who can care for you as a parent, single, heterosexual or gay.

Sure, depending on experience, perhaps some self discovery journey, some kids might want to know the other guy or girl who donated towards the embryo, but that is hardly the most important thing. I'd say the most important thing is someone to nurture and take them to and through that point

And I guess the perfect answer to your nature argument is that if nature wanted us to be all fun loving heterosexuals, we'd be. But we're not.

dasparrow:
@Post
Lastly, generally speaking, Africans strongly believe in reproduction. Any relationship that is biologically not designed to bear offspring will be shunned hence the backlash homosexuality is receiving on the African continent.

Here again with the African thing. Where exactly did you get the idea that we strongly believe in reproduction and others don't. If anything, we failed and continually fail to understand the benefits and shortfalls of reproducing as fast and as much as we do compared to the rest of the world. Ever read about Thomas Malthus, female health and family planning? Ever wondered why public goods like electricity are said to be continually stretched by our population?

dozieamadi:
I think Africans should fight gay unions based on religoius belives not some stupid self call culture or morals.we have gays in Africa mind u

I do believe fighting based on religion is right, as long as it is kept to places of worship, not our constitution.