There is a celebrated fable in one of the Yoruba textbooks some of us read in the late 90s- it was about the tortoise and the snail. The tortoise had gone to his in law's (snail) farm to steal tubers of yam- obviously, a disgraceful act in most society, he was caught by snail and embarrassed. His kind of embarrassment was somewhat epic- he was tied to a tree at the market square for passersby to see and mock. In the earlier stage of the punishment, it was a pleasant sight for everybody to see the incredibly indolent tortoise in such a disgraceful state. However, the pleasure soon faded as the mockery of tortoise soon turned to pity. He has been left in that state for too long and then justifications started emerging for his act- was he not his in-law? After all, he won't eat the yam alone- the villagers chorused. In a moment, the burden of blame had shifted from tortoise to snail. At the end, the snail had the embarrassment. This piece is to call us to order- the crusaders of 'sound' morals, the homophobic, keepers of faith and religion, the 'sane' men and the bandwagon on the side of culture and tradition from ending our strive against homosexuality disgracefully.

Homosexuality has been met with strict criticisms in different parts of the world. Even in the countries where it has been honoured with a stay, voices still abound lamenting the evil in making legal what God has made illegal. Their argument has been that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Paul or Eve and Rose. To indicate God's profound dissent to homosexuality, we have been reminded of His furious visit on Sodom and Gomorrah. We need not do a review of this, it suffices to make religiously inclined individuals to steer clear of this aberration. That in itself is an headache for the atheist- a peep into their heart revealed their begging question 'can an inexistent being set a precedent?' They strongly hold that 'God is not the creator of man, but God is the creation of man's own imagination.' An argument whose rebuttal would be left to lie awaiting occasion here.

From another perspective- the school of morality and culture which are almost inseparable Siamese twins hold that homosexuality is evil, alien and defeats the whole essence of a union- to consummate, procreate and increase the human race. For this school, it is a shame because homosexuality does not pave way for the above. In morally condemning this emerging culture of homosexuality, we have allowed ourselves to be ridiculed as the very people who wallows in moral decadence. We have tied homosexuality to the stake at the market square, but one of our key reasons is set to make a fool of us as dawn becomes dusk- the moral argument and our orientation.

First, it is a reflection of a dwindle in moral strength for anyone to have thought that the essence of a union is to consummate and procreate. By its logical understanding and principle of normalcy, a union that seeks to consummate and procreate alone itself does not become a union without the presence of certain factors- companionship, love, trust, freedom, security etc. Charity begins at home- a consummation which leads to the existence of another being in an environment lacking the stated factors is like the birth of another evil in the world. Are we saying that consummation or procreation is the bedrock of a union? When an average person condemns homosexuality, his words reflect his mind- a mind angry at why proper sexual intercourse would be absent in a union- a man and a woman in a sexual state. But does it even paint us as sincere in our strive against the terror of homosexuality? Gays, lesbians and others in that line listen to our arguments and read our takes, but they laugh and develop a stronger will because we are doing the right work with the wrong tool. Would it have made a difference if a man feels that happiness is what he wants in a union and he sees it in an old friend who has bought his trust without sexual attachment? He is free, happy, contented and complete around him. Does that make him gay? A union between a man and a woman that leaves the woman as a sex slave, victim of constant battery and emotional trauma is a union. Right? As long as it is a man and a woman and 'sex' is involved- they have satisfied the society, but the essence of life is defeated- freedom, love, happiness, peace etc, etc. On the moral and cultural grounds, our arguments are dangerous and they make us appear like sexual perverts before homosexuals and unprejudiced thinkers. We must start seeing unions beyond a sexual venture before we can convince them that nature itself does not understand an unexplainable attraction to the same sex.

Can you tell your boy child to avoid closeness to the next door neighbour's son because he can't have babies for him and sound reasonable? Other explanation or reasons will do but not with our chant about consummation and procreation. In a bid to nip the danger of homosexuality at the bud through moral justification, we have ridiculed our own struggles before the other side. Reasons abound to condemn homosexuality on a moral ground but not the one we sell about- it is just not about sexual intercourse.

Wat are u trying to say

After reading all the big big grammars nd using ma dictionary..... What u are tryna say still isn't vague to me

After reading all the big big grammars nd using ma dictionary..... What u at tryna say still isn't vague to me

Cleverness is not wisdom, there are many ideals you can use your ingenuity to promote, isn't it?: Aofe O nilu, oni mofe darin. Tooba daa tan, tanio bao gbee?

Immanueladebol:
Wat are u trying to say

It is evil, but we should not try to condemn it with the argument that it does not pave way for proper sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It will make us sound immoral. There are better arguments.

2prexios:
Cleverness is not wisdom, there are many ideals you can use your ingenuity to promote, isn't it?: Aofe O nilu, oni mofe darin. Tooba daa tan, tanio bao gbee?

Like can you for once make a remark without a touch of insult? I write for people who are intelligent enough to understand. Did I ever support homosexuality in that piece? The problem with most people on this forum is that they read not to understand but to reply! Àgbà tíò keùn sòró, á ketan sáré. E ní sùúrù fún àkàyé!

JUSTbuchi:
After reading all the big big grammars nd using ma dictionary..... What u at tryna say still isn't vague to me

I don't know your definition of big grammars and vagueness. However, I'll let that slide.

Hidentity:


Like can you for once make a remark without a touch of insult? I write for people who are intelligent enough to understand. Did I ever support homosexuality in that piece? The problem with most people on this forum is that they read not to understand but to reply! Àgbà tíò keùn sòró, á ketan sáré. E ní sùúrù fún àkàyé!

Agba osi ngbe okere, eni nfenu aponle peun abuku, abuku lon'ponle. Ekute Ajenifeni, die die nimu elede nwogba.

2prexios:
Agba osi ngbe okere, eni nfenu aponle peun abuku, abuku lon'ponle. Ekute Ajenifeni, die die nimu elede nwogba.

Òré, jòwó bí ènìyàn ko èdè Yorùbá tí ò fi àmì tó ye pón o lé, bí eni tó n pègèdè ni. I couldn't read you right and to continue with me, write as you should.

Hidentity:


Òré, jòwó bí ènìyàn ko èdè Yorùbá tí ò fi àmì tó ye pón o lé, bí eni tó n pègèdè ni. I couldn't read you right and to continue with me, write as you should.

Ore, eyi ti o je pataki julo ni oye, kosee fowora. I would like to continue with you on a topic that add value to society, not one that divides mankind.

2prexios:
Ore, eyi ti o je pataki julo ni oye, kosee fowora. I would like to continue with you on a topic that add value to society, not one that divides mankind.

Well, you have a point. Nonetheless, this shame of a thing won't end if we don't apply logic to the points we use in convening it. Peace

Hidentity,you are right....

But what other arguments do you think we can use to counter homosexuality?

Taylor184:
Hidentity,you are right....


But what other arguments do you think we can use to counter homosexuality?

Cerebral remark sir! Why did God made man and woman and not man and man? They should be left to ponder on that.

The unity in diversity that should ensure the continuity of humanity through collective involvement, gender balance etc would be threatened if a gender feels it needs only a similar gender to move ahead on life. It points to a divisive stage where a world will be for the women and maybe one for the men.

Proper orientation for kids. It is odd for parents to tell kids going to school not to play with someone of the opposite sex. No, define the extent of the play for them and let teachers take it up from there. Of a child grows with such orientation of play with Jane, she is a girl too, not John, it can register the wrong message in her mind and yield a wrong result that the parents won't even be proud of.

The idea of girls only or guys only school does not seems to achieve more good than evil- scrap it. If that won't work, develop measures to serve as checks on potential excesses.

Right from their teens, African parents should avoid the oversensitivity on sex education. Teach your children and let them know certain things. Most discover things on their own to the wrong side. My brothers they are many, instead of that line of argument we all promote. But the world is sick, people just read to bother their fingers and not to ponder.