Homosexuality: The Science And The Myth

Femi Olugbile A standard dictionary definition of the word ‘Homosexuality’ reads something like ‘Sexual desire or behaviour directed towards a person or persons of one’s own sex’. A more ‘medical’ description would ,be ‘Sexual orientation to, or activity with another of the same sex’. In order to fully embody the implication that this is a ‘way of life’ rather than a transient ‘aberration’ of behaviour, it has to be stated in the definition that this is the predominant or even exclusive modality of sexual expression of the individual. Very few matters have excited as much controversy lately as the issue of how society should deal with homosexuality and homosexual persons. The international press has portrayed the dim view and harsh laws in place in many African countries as evidence of all manner of social negatives, from backward social mores to corrupt authoritarian despots, using a minority group as convenient scapegoats. And indeed the public view in Africa is overwhelmingly loaded against homosexuality, and homosexuals, in a very personal way. The 2007 Pan Global Attitudes Project showed that 97 per cent of the Nigerian public were of the view that homosexuality was a way of life that society should not accept. This was the second highest rate of non-acceptance in all the 45 countries surveyed. The first known use of the word ‘homosexual’ was in 1868. The author was Karl-Maria Kertbeny. The platform was a scientific publication. The word was employed in the description of same-sex attraction and sexual behaviour in human beings. It would appear that the tendency of some people to exhibit sexual orientation and behaviour that is different from the mainstream has been with humanity since the beginning of society. There is also some evidence that significant numbers of animals, including birds such as penguins and pigeons, mammals such as giraffes, monkeys, rams, and lions, and other species such as lizards and insects, are ‘guilty’ of occasional or exclusive display of same-sex preference. [caption id="attachment_10592" align="aligncenter" width="300"] •Homosexuals[/caption] How Different Is The Homosexual From The ‘Normal’ Human Being? It is instructive to note that up till two and a half decades ago, homosexuality was classified as a ‘disease’ in the extant international classifications of diseases. The standard ‘treatments’ for the condition in psychology and psychiatry included behaviour modification and ‘aversive’ techniques that were to be used on ‘patients’, especially those who were uncomfortable with their sexual orientation and desired a change. The ‘discomfort’ experienced by such individuals had a lot to do with the fact that they often had to keep their ‘problem’ a secret, even from family members. Many were compelled to live double lives, carrying on the appearances of ‘normal’ family and heterosexual lives while secretly indulging their preferred inclinations. The subterfuge that attended the whole life-style made them vulnerable to exploitation and blackmail by unscrupulous others, who could threaten to ‘out’ them. Being ‘out-ed’ as a homosexual, in many circles, could cost the individual his job, or lead to the breakup of precious relationships. Even in the armed forces of Western nations, known homosexuals often faced discrimination and the risk of loss of career. Homosexuality is no longer regarded as a medical diagnosis, but the ‘medical’ controversies surrounding it are far from over. Take the role of Psychology. The preeminent psychological perspective of the homosexual tendency was provided several decades ago by Sigmund Freud, the originator of Psychoanalysis. According to his school of thought, human beings are inherently bisexual. This means that human beings are born ‘wired’ with some features of both sexes. Despite this, most humans show a clear identification with one sex, and a preference for the opposite sex in terms of their sexual orientation. However it is not unusual, given the inherent bisexuality of the species, that there would be people who show a sexual preference for the same sex, or who retain and express the inherent bisexuality in their sexual behaviour into adulthood. The explanation also provides a context for understanding other more exotic patterns of sexual behaviour such as transvestism, a condition in which a person derives sexual gratification from dressing up as a person of the opposite sex, and transexuality, another condition in which a person is convinced, often from an early age, that he (or she) is really of the opposite sex, and may insist on surgical ‘treatment’ in order to ‘correct’ the biological ‘mistake’. Following a sex-change operation, a man becomes a ‘woman’, and a woman becomes a ‘man’. In India the transexuals are substantial in numbers, and have formed a powerful lobby group. In official records, lately, they have secured the right to be documented as not male, not female, but a ‘third sex’. None of this is calculated to bring a smile to the face of the strait-laced mainstream Nigerian male, especially if he has Religion, as he believes passionately in his heart that a person’s sexuality is determined by God, and all sexual relations are for the purpose of procreation. How Common Is ‘Homosexuality’ In The World? What evidence there is, is apt to be confusing, and is mired in controversy and denial. Some researchers have given a figure as high as 8 per cent of the entire human population as having a predominantly homosexual orientation. Many people in different parts of the world, especially in Africa, would hotly dispute that it is so common. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe would say categorically that there is no homosexuality in his country, nor should any be allowed. President Museveni of Uganda would echo his sentiment. Many members of the general public in Nigeria would agree with those sentiments. What Is The Evidence From Ethology And The Study Of Other Animals In General? As stated earlier, it is clearly established that homosexual behaviour is present among several species of animals. Of course it is one thing to find that a habit exists on the fringe in the animal kingdom. It is another matter to contemplate its possibility or legitimacy among human beings. For one thing, human beings live in society. Every society has rules undergirding personal behaviour and interactions between different members. These rules are based on culture, religion, the prevalent definition of morality, and the world view of the society. The major religions of the world have positions on homosexuality which would appear clear-cut for the most part, but which have not been exempted from controversy in the present-day. [caption id="attachment_10594" align="aligncenter" width="300"] •Lesbians[/caption] Christianity frowns at homosexuality as behaviour which is abhorrent. The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as told in Genesis 19 is generally seen as punishment for rampant homosexual behaviour by the citizenry (the word ‘sodomy’ which is used pejoratively to describe anal sex has its origins in ‘Sodom’). The book of Leviticus has passages that prohibit ‘lying with mankind as with womankind’. A similar story is told in the book of Judges. Some Christian denominations are clearly opposed tohomosexuality. They include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Methodist Church, the Reformed Church in America, the American Baptist Church, Conservative Evangelical Churches, and the Southern Baptist Convention. The mainstream Catholic Church holds ‘homosexual acts’ to be ‘grave sins’ which are ‘contrary to natural law’. Some churches purport to welcome people who have ‘homosexual feelings and emotions’ but encourage them to ‘work towards overcoming their harmful effects in their lives’. Some deny sacrament to people who participate in, or justify, homosexual acts. However some Christian denominations are accepting of same-sex relationships, especially if they are monogamous. They do not view them as sinful or immoral. They are prepared to ‘bless’ the ‘union’ and consider it as valid ‘marriage’. They are even prepared to appoint clergy who are living in openly homosexual relationship into positions of leadership. The Anglican Communion world-wide is currently being riven apart by controversy surrounding this issue, with the mainstream Church under the aegis of the Archbishop of Canterbury being keen to move forward with ‘liberalisation’, but a large faction led by the Nigerian Church unwilling to countenance such acceptance. [caption id="attachment_10595" align="aligncenter" width="300"] •Same sex marriage[/caption] The Islamic position is emphatic. There are said to be five references to gay and lesbian behaviour in the Koran, with two of them being key. One passage goes thus: ‘We also sent Lut: He said to his people ‘Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation ever committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women. Ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.’ Another passage goes: ‘What! Of all creatures do you come onto the males, and leave the wives your lord created for you. Nay, but ye are forward folk.’ The mainstream tendency within the religion frowns severely at all homosexual activity, male or female. Some religion-based governments do more than just frown. It is said that over 4,000 people have been executed in Iran since the revolution in 1979 for homosexual activities. At least ten public executions are said to have been carried out by the Taliban in Afghanistan for the same offence. The perception of homosexuality from the point of view of African traditional religion is less precisely defined. According to some experts, homosexual activity figures in traditional religions and cultural relics. Some of the evidence adduced for the presence of homosexual behaviour in Yoruba folklore includes the ‘transvestite’ dressing of Sango, the god of thunder, a male entity who is always depicted with woven hair, wearing a skirt. Art works such Igbo Ukwu and Benin art depict images that have been interpreted to mean that the culture at source was accepting of same-sex relationships, or at least acknowledged the potential dualism of individual sexuality. All of these details set the background for a contemporary controversy that has raged with a fresh fervour since the African nations of Uganda and Nigeria enacted legislation effectively criminalising the practice of homosexuality and imposing harsh penalties on homosexual ‘offenders’. The Nigerian law, signed into force by President Jonathan on 13 January, 2014 prescribes a jail term of 14 years for anyone who gets involved in a homosexual marriage, engages in an intimate relationship with a person of the same sex, or joins a homosexual organisation. It bans gatherings of homosexuals, and imposes a jail term of ten years on any person who supports the registration, operation and sustenance of homosexual clubs, societies, organisations, processions or meetings in Nigeria. A month after this law, an even more draconian law was enacted in Uganda, tagged the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014. The original version of the law prescribed the death penalty for anyone engaging in same-sex relationship. This was ‘mellowed down’ to life imprisonment in the finished work. The law has penalties for individuals, corporate organisations, media organisations, and NGOs that give support to homosexuals or their rights. It even has a provision for Ugandans who engage in homosexual behaviour outside Uganda to be extradited back to Uganda for punishment. So extreme is the tone of this law that even traditional homophobes were observed to cringe in awe at some of its provisions. And indeed, despite the widely prevalent public sentiment against homosexuals in Ugandan society, the latest development in the Uganda saga is that the Constitutional Court on 1 August of this year ruled that the law was invalid. The discussion is very polarised, and very polarising. The protagonists on both extremes expect people who side with them to do so ‘hook, line, and sinker’, otherwise they are the enemy. But a cursory look at the Nigerian law would show why even a person who is not particularly favourably disposed to homosexuality may balk at some of its provisions. Fourteen years in jail for getting into a homosexual marriage, or engaging in an intimate homosexual relationship, or joining a homosexual organisation! It is not difficult to pick holes in the logic. Fourteen years for a ‘marriage’ – homosexual or otherwise? Is it not easier for government to simply ban civil authorities from conducting such marriages, and insist any marriage which is conducted by any other body, whether ‘traditional’ or ‘religious’, would not be recognised? What about the one that is validly conducted in other countries where such ‘marriage’ is not illegal, where the ‘couple’ then travel to Nigeria? Would they be bundled straight to prison, whether they are Nigerian citizens or foreigners, or merely informed that their ‘union’ is not recognised as a valid marriage? The 14 years for ‘engaging in homosexual relationship’ is even more bizarre, if one is talking about consenting adults. The talk is not about having sex or displaying affection in public, which might at least make some sense as they might offend the social, religious or moral sensibilities of others. How does a relationship, conducted in private by consenting adults, become such a major criminal offence, that the enforcement of the law raises the spectre of law officers knocking on the doors of citizen’s apartments and dragging hapless adults minding their business off to jail, through a ‘guard of honour’ formed by jeering neighbours who must have informed on them, perhaps after spying through the keyhole. What about 14 years for ‘joining a homosexual organisation’? Whatever happened to the freedom of association? One is not talking about an organisation that is plotting secession of part of Nigeria, or planning the assassination of government leaders! [caption id="attachment_10598" align="alignright" width="300"] •Olugbile[/caption]On the other hand, the prevalent logic in the countries which are most disdainful of the African attitude, while obviously smug and self-satisfied, is not as unassailable as most people in those societies would like to think. The homosexuals’ struggle for ‘equal rights’ has been likened in Western society to the Civil Rights movement - the struggle for emancipation and equality by an oppressed minority of black people in America. The comparison in a way diminishes the black struggle, but also unfairly invests the homosexual struggle with a ‘political correctness’, since any apparent opposition to it would be tantamount to being ‘racist’. The protagonists of the pro-homosexual argument also give the impression that all issues pertaining to the subject are settled, all implications have been thought through, all possibility of potential harm to human society now or in the future has been eliminated, and anyone who is not signing on is uncivilised and simply does not get it. Many people have specifically remarked that the draconian Ugandan and Nigerian laws are evidence of present-day backwardness that will improve over time as the nations, and the whole of African society, become more ‘civilised’. But some issues would simply not agree to go away. Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the ‘personal freedom’ guaranteed to the individual in the Open Society makes it difficult to find any justification for criminalising any relationship that is voluntarily entered into by two consenting adults, when they are not, through it, directly infringing on the rights of other people. This is the ‘basic’ aspect of the ‘right’. The logic would have been hard to assail if it stopped at that. The truth is that it does not. There are ‘extensions’ to the liberty which need to be weighed one by one, instead of being shoved into the basket in a frantic rush to be ‘liberal’ and ‘correct’. The assumptions, which have been followed by the herd, include the notion that a man and a man (and a woman and a woman) should be able to ‘marry’, both in civil and religious union. The marriage should be recognised by the law, and the ‘couple’ given the same rights before the law as any other legally married couple, including the rights to property and benefits. They include the right of homosexual couples to adopt and foster children, and bring them up as ‘family’. They include unstated other rights – such as the right to display affection openly in public, the right to have graphic depictions of homosexual love in print and cinema, the right to have ‘the homosexual position’ advanced as part of the education of youth, the right to have homosexual clergy ordained as bishops, and the right to have ‘married’ homosexual clergy lead the flock of the faithful in church service. Every one of these assumptions is in and of itself a very serious issue, carrying weighty implications now, and down the line. At the very least they require serious consideration. ‘Civilised, Western society’ seems to assume that all of the ‘rights’ should automatically go with the baggage, and that it is pointless, or ‘racist’ to query any of the details. The label of ‘homophobia’ in America and some parts of Europe has become a powerful stigma, similar to ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘racism’, which everybody tries to avoid at all costs. The widely-prevalent tendency to gingerly step round the topic and profess acceptance is not just because people want to be well-regarded by other ‘right-thinking’ members of their society. There is an economic consequence to it. A public accusation that the CEO of a company has made ‘homophobic’ comments is enough to start a campaign of ‘black-listing’ and de-marketing the company. Many people so accused have had to offer the most abject apologies, or even resign their positions in order to save the fortunes of their organisations. It is a kind of rigorous ‘thought-control’ that seems to have a firm grip on the social behaviour and public pronouncements in Western society. ‘Free Speech’, it turns out, is not so ‘free’, when it comes to this topic. The resultant effect is that expression of worry about aspects of ‘homosexual liberty’ is left to the extreme fringe of society, especially the conservative ‘right-wing’ of American political thought. Unfortunately, allowing extreme Conservatives to own the argument means that the content of the argument itself would be extreme (some Conservatives may consider it ‘legitimate’ to ‘shoot’ homosexuals). It also means that the ‘decent everyday folk’ would hurry to distance themselves from any participation in the discussion for fear of being thought to be siding with ‘the lunatic fringe’. There is no doubt that Western society, and indeed all of human society, needs to engage in robust debate about how much ‘freedom’ is too much freedom. In allowing freedom for adults to choose their form of sexual expression and the partners they associate with, and also allowing all the ‘extensions’ and corollary rights that appear to have been tagged on, are we only respecting the rights of a minority, or ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘advertising’ a form of behaviour that previously only existed on the fringe? The difference is crucial. The psychological effect of ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘advertising’ a certain behaviour that was previously frowned upon, especially on the young members of society who are highly ‘suggestible’, does not just teach them that the behaviour is ‘tolerated’, but goes on to suggest to them that it is perfectly legitimate, and (perhaps) worthy of emulation. To that extent, the public display is not a ‘neutral’ expression of individual freedom. Without a shred of doubt, irrespective of what the proponents may say, the chances of occurrence of such behaviour are increased, if only because the ‘silent’ others who may have felt the ‘inclination’ but lacked the courage to ‘experiment’ or express themselves, are thereby ‘liberated’ to ‘come out’. It is important here to remember Sigmund Freud’s theory concerning the inherent bisexuality of all human beings. If behaviour that at least some members of human society are worried about (even where they are respectful of the basic rights of people who feel that way) is ‘perfectly okay’ and is even ‘modelled’ by being put on public display, then the conflicted or ambivalent individual is more likely to ‘experiment’. There is here a possibility that the ground-rules of social behaviour in the human race are being irrevocably altered for present and future generations. There is an even more ‘intimate’ scenario to contemplate. The rights that are currently being advanced in Western society include the right to adopt and bring up children. Thousands of children are being brought up by same sex male or female parents. The children raised in such homes will grow used to seeing expressions of affection and intimacy by their same-sex parents, and will accept them as ‘normal’. Although proponents have argued fervently that there is no evidence available yet that such children are likely to grow up as homosexuals themselves, they are at least subject to the influence of ‘modelling’ which, as every psychologist knows, is one of the most powerful influencers of the behaviour of growing children. Without pre-judgement or prejudice concerning the eventual outcome, it is necessary that society – any society, whether European, American, or Nigerian – sit down calmly to consider all of these facts, all of the immediate and remote implications, in order to reach a rational position on the Homosexuality debate. How much freedom is too much freedom? Dennis Wheatley, an English writer of fiction and an occasional dabbler into metaphysical matters, once described the prevailing principle of a civilisation ‘controlled by the devil’ and about to implode from its own internal contradictions as ‘Do as thou wilt is all of the Law’. The Museveni/Mugabe (and perhaps Dr. Jonathan) position is that any freedom at all granted to the homosexual is already too much freedom. No matter how emotionally persuasive this standpoint is, clearly it cannot be totally right, and it cannot be made totally right by appealing to some fabled ‘African-ness’ that abhors homosexuality. If there are cultural behaviours, folklore, icons and relics that depict homosexual behaviour, just as there are – let’s face it, home-grown individuals who have declared themselves homosexuals, the behaviour cannot be said to be totally ‘alien’ to Africa and the African. On the other hand, the assumption that the litmus test for a society to show that it is ‘civilised’ is to display an uncritical acceptance of the ‘liberal’ ‘homophilia’ that ‘normalises’ the flaunting of ‘gay’ culture, that mainstreams ‘gay pride’, that ‘educates’ the children in schools on gay culture, that reflects uncritical approval of gay life in film and literature, that shows gay sex in film for a non-gay audience, that is accepting of gay marriage and adoption and parenting rights is an unfair and ultimately unrealistic assumption that is doomed to failure. All of this can be very confusing to the modern Nigerian, especially the youth, who aspires to be fair, but also aspires to be sure that he is thinking and doing the right thing. What is the right thing to do in the homosexual battle? Where is the high ground, short of throwing out his right to question? There are four ‘Core Principle’ zones for the critical thinker to work in. One is how to ensure that all laws and conventions of human social behaviour respect the rights of every individual at all times, and that they do nothing to infringe on those rights, no matter how strong the temptation, or how powerful the pressure of the majority. Another is the requirement for society now, and for all time, to de-criminalise the contents of the citizen’s private life. Affectionate relationships, carried out in private by consenting adults, can only be labelled criminal by a society that is itself criminally disposed to violate the rights and privileges of its members without justification. A third, and very important zone, requires that the issue of adoption and parenting of the future generations by homosexual couples should be returned to the discussion table, so that society ultimately takes a stand only after a fulsome appraisal of its identity, and the future it wants for itself. And the fourth is that cultural depictions, especially what is available in audio-visual media to a general audience, and more particularly to an audience of youth, should – no, must – be controlled by the society itself, based on a consensus about what it is, and what it wants to become. The discussion, and the acrimony, will go on for a long time to come. Sadly, most of it is fuelled by passionate arguments based more on gut instincts that hard facts. It would help everybody, and help the future of Mankind, if the hot air could be taken out of it, so that the best human energy could be expended on achieving some kind of consensus on the ‘Core Principles’ of a reasoned response to the living reality of homosexuality. Only this would provide a good roadmap to a liveable future.