Debating a Bigot

I start with a caveat that not everyone who opposes same-sex unions (or denies the existence of a homosexual orientation as natural or normal) is a bigot. I have met many that come from a position of ignorance, some from pure religious, social, or political conditioning over a long period of time. There are many others however with no other arguments than that people different from them should just not be allowed to have any rights, privileges, or aspirations. They come from positions of fear, loathing, ignorance, heterosexual privilege, conservatism, and bigotry. It is for them that this list might be useful. They are questions and arguments I’ve had from those to whom the support of gay rights is unthinkable.

1. Being gay is “unnatural”. Have you seen a gay animal?

Dextrocardia is unnatural (a congenital condition in which people have their hearts on the right side of the chest), among many “unnatural” human conditions that we have not legalized against. And about gay animals? Quite a lot, actually!

2. Being gay is unAfrican.

So is kissing, oral sex (and what has been popularly glorified in literature as the position 69), anal sex between heterosexual married couples, and every other sex act that “civilization” brought to us. If you’re offended by homosexuality, are you also offended by these unAfrican sex acts?

59680_642698232455088_154290889_n

3. Being gay is bad because it doesn’t lead to procreation and children. (This is one of the popular arguments.)

Neither does celibacy, by the way. (And neither does kissing, oral sex, etc.) Do you want a law insisting that EVERYONE in the country MUST have children? What of a law to mandate all married people to have children by force? How about telling them how many children to have?

4. Alright, gay people exist, we agree. But why do they want rights like everyone else?

Good thing you admitted that. It’s a first step. However, the question answers itself. Why not? (In Nigeria, at least, what I know about the matter is not that gay people “want rights”, but that they don’t want their human rights taken away. 14 years in jail for being who you are is pretty excessive.)

5. Legalizing gay marriage will make it acceptable to be gay. Would you want you child to be gay? If your parents chose to be gay, would you have been born?

Legalizing alcohol hasn’t turned all kids in Nigeria to alcoholics. Legalizing against kissing or oral sex won’t make it go away either since it usually takes place behind close doors. Secondly, being gay isn’t a choice, just like being straight isn’t. I didn’t choose to be straight. Gay people won’t disappear because of the legislation either. If my parents were gay, they clearly wouldn’t have married each other (and maybe I’d have been better for it). 

6. Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, and destroy civilization if everyone becomes gay.

I am a married man. I do not see how giving other men and women a chance to pursue happiness of marriage with each other will take away from my own happiness. And about civilization getting destroyed, I don’t understand that. People don’t become gay. I lived in the US where gay unions are legal, and I never became gay as a result, nor developed any inclination to become one. Gay people exist. I’ve met a number of them. So do straight people. I have colleagues and friends who are gay. I also have colleagues and friends who are straight. The didn’t “influence” an orientation change in me, just like having smoking friends didn’t turn me into a smoker. Having white-skinned friends didn’t turn me white either. Straight people will keep having children (so don’t worry about the world dying off), and gay people will keep dating each other, and NOT having children. Everyone wins.

7. I hate the idea of gay sex. I can’t imagine it. It’s disgusting. Think about it. Does it make sense to you?

I don’t imagine gay sex either. I also can’t imagine anal sex between man-woman couples. That’s why I don’t do it. However, I don’t want a law against it, as it does nothing to remove from the intimacy I share with my own spouse. There are clearly those who can imagine it, and who enjoy it. Their happiness doesn’t irritate me. Why does it irritate you?

8. Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman!

Says who? The bible? Not really.

9. Being gay isn’t Christian.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu clearly doesn’t think so. And neither does the Pope, anyway (talk of being holier than the Pope). In any case, homophobia/intolerance isn’t Christian either.

10. You have been corrupted by the West. That’s why you’re arguing this way.

Draconian laws against gays, minorities, etc also had its heyday in the United States. For a number of years, blacks couldn’t even marry out of their race. Unbelievable as it sounds, there are no written accounts of ancient African societies penalizing people on the basis of their sexual orientation. (At least I haven’t read of any). So, in an ironical way, homophobia is the real pernicious Western influence.

Update: If you’re straight and you still need convincing about the horrific nature of the new law in Nigeria, there is a great article here, titled The Straight Nigerian’s Guide to the New Anti-Gay Law. Read it.

A Sad Day in America

Today ended like a dream, a series of surreal hours that – one after the other – confirmed some of the worst fears of sane tolerant people. I’m disappointed like I’ve never before been in the political process and a certain intolerance best exemplified by what had just happened. It was unbelievable. The president of the United States had called a press conference, cutting into all live shows around the country, to show a final definite proof that he was born in the country as he had always said he was: a long hand birth certificate. It was the first of any president.

Obama's birth certificate in the eyes of a birtherFor me, this is sad on many levels, and race had a very large role to play. A few minutes after the White House released said birth certificate which they had got on request from the records office in Hawaii to put the controversy to rest, media mogul Donald Trump – also a contender for the next election – went to a press conference not just taking credit for the disclosure but also asking for the president’s college transcripts thus casting doubts on his qualifications as well.

I am a firm believer in the inner goodness of every human being in spite of their colour. I approached this country and people with the same open mindedness and was – like everyone else around the world – ecstatic and absolved when Obama was elected in 2008 in spite of what many considered his biggest obstacle: the colour of his skin. And then, from then, disappointed as to how every criticism of his policies seemed to come with something more than just a mere disagreement with economic policies. The press conference by Mr. Trump exemplified for me an unfortunate culmination of an underlying culture of intolerance.

First he said the president wasn’t born where he said he was, then he said the president had paid over $2m to prevent himself from having to show the document. A few weeks ago, he said he had sent investigators to Hawaii and he “couldn’t believe what they’re finding.” This, we found, was a lie, as Anderson Cooper found out after sending his own reporters to Hawaii. It turned out that Trump’s men either haven’t been there, or haven’t spoken to any relevant people as they should have. Yet he kept hyping the issue up for ratings in the media. Today, as the document finally surfaced, you would think he would back down. No, “we will get experts to examine it,” he said. For a moment there, I remembered another third world country – Ivory Coast – where Laurent Gbagbo had used a similar case of citizenship to keep his opponent away from the political process for many years. Many years, thousands of lives, and a brutal civil war later, we know where Gbagbo now sleeps, and in what bad shape his country is. It’s not the perfect analogy, but it’s not too far off either. The script is the same: “show us your papers and we’d let you play.”

I don’t think that many Americans realize just how bad this reflects on the country to the rest of the world, and that makes it a little more unfortunate. I’m not American and may never try to be one. But seeing how the country treats its own and one of its best leaves very much to be desired. This piece published today puts it in very good perspective. (Thanks to Nneoma for the link)

The Cross and the Crescent: A Short Story

Once upon a time, there lived a cross in front of the Chapel of Resurrection in the University of Ibadan. The cross had been there almost since the University itself started, perhaps due to the fact that colonialists had preferred religion as one of the ways of controlling the  empire. Even in the Faculty of Arts, one of the first departments in the University was Religious Studies. The others were English, Classics and (I’m guessing British) History.  In any case, at considerable distance from the building of the Chapel itself, a cross stood as a symbol of the predominant religion, and everyone went their way.

Then one day, half of the grounds on which the Chapel had stood for years became parceled out to make way for the other now predominant religion in the University, this time, Islam. It made a lot of sense that administration allowed the freedom of worship within academic grounds. It was only logical that such a space be made around the same spot as the Chapel perhaps to make it easy to just call the area “Religious Grounds/Centre.” If you have a sense of humour, you may want to push it further and say that it will make it easier for God to hear everyone at once without having to leave the one place. So the Chapel stayed in its place, and so did the cross at the junction, almost adjacent the Catholic church building across the road. The mosque was a few metres down the area and the rest of the grounds remained open for practise of any form of spiritual contemplation and students have been known to go there to meditate or simply to get away from the bustle of the school area.

One day however, somebody in the adjoining mosque had a bright idea. The cross that had stood in its place for many years had become an obstruction – a sort of spiritual hindrance to their clear view of Mecca where they turned whenever they prayed. Never mind that it was not sited as an afterthought to the mosque, or that it was not really blocking anyone’s view (since, while praying in the mosque, it is really quite impossible to see the cross outside). For the brilliant Moslem student in the academia of those days, there was something inherently discomforting in bowing down in a mosque sited close to the emblem of a (perhaps rival) religion. The solution: demolish the cross or get it transferred to somewhere else. The mosque was there now and nobody had a right to place an obstacle to its religious independence even at such symbolic level. Of course the Chrisitians were not going to have any of that. Either the mosque is relocated, or the worshippers must respect the presence of their respectable symbol of faith since it had been standing in that position perhaps even before the mosque was sited. A true story. God, at that time, if he wasn’t the one pulling the ropes, must have had a cause to break into a smile at this point.

Guessing as can only be possible now from such a considerable time distance from those times, I can only try to picture what the scene must have been like: Christian students writing in campus magazines flaming articles to condemn the Moslems obvious intolerance, and vowing to defend the cross (both literally and figuratively) from vandalism, and the Moslems rallying after the champion of their cause in order to have their way – which they did in the end. Well, not totally. A compromise was reached and another plinth was erected close to the controversial cross. This time, it bore the crescent and the star, and it stood within considerable sight of the mosque, the chapel and the old cross. To “block out” the sight of the cross from the mosque, a large crate of concrete was also erected between the contumacious symbol and the Islamic praying grounds. All those buildings are still there today including the crate of concrete, and, to quote Soyinka on the matter “no earthquake has (yet) been reported within those holy grounds.” There are many more layers to the issue, of course, one of which was that that particular fight polarized the University and ruined old alliances, even within groups of people who believed in neither religion. Such was the level of intolerance that even pacifist on campus started gearing up to fight on one side or the other. The Cross and the Crescent in their heat of the passion contest for the hallowed right to – even if only symbolically – exist simply forgot about all the others and were ready to turn all hell loose if their point of view wasn’t respected.

Luckily, academia survived it – as much as it could – and all has remained calm ever since. Walking through the religious grounds a few weeks ago in company of a (Nigerian) visiting medical researcher from Connecticut, I took these pictures and took time to narrate the story which she, and many people I’ve told afterwards, hasn’t heard before. I promised to blog about it but didn’t make the time to do so until now, and what a time it is. The United States – or at least its airwaves – has become if not multiply polarized because of the testy decision to site a mosque a few blocks away from the old site of the World Trade Centre where in 2001 some fatalistic zealots had committed one of the world’s horrible crimes in the name of religion. On the face of it, it is insensitive, but a little paring will reveal it as only a testing of the true values of the country. Fifty years from now, I believe it would probably have become just another one of those moments in the development of a just and tolerant nation. But for now, let us watch but with our emotions in check, especially for the sake of those who have neither interest nor investment in the matter. I have heard families of victims of the World Trade Centre bombings say that the mosque is a fitting tribute. I’ve also heard from other families who say it is an insult. Nobody has heard from the dead, or from those who might still die if the intolerance is allowed to blur a simple distinction between a place of private worship by moderate and law abiding citizens and a shrine to terrorism sponsored by a faceless terrorist group in the caves of Helmand (where US forces shoot to kill every day). I heard that a Fox news commenter has also vowed to start a gay bar close to the mosque “to cater for the needs of Moslem men.” See? Freedom.

Maybe there is, or maybe there isn’t, a lesson for the divided American opinions in this Nigerian example, and in the paraphrased words of a writer: “Tolerance doesn’t proclaim itself or weave itself into conditions. It’s in itself evident.” Or maybe the answers are not really in religion, or sentiments, but in the constitution (which itself is just common sense); or in the examination of our own individual prejudices, and a sometimes thorough delineation of who the enemy really is. To me, this case appears as such a little test of the enduring values of the society that is America. But of course it is also just a local matter between the owner of the parcel of land, and the owners of the proposed mosque. Nothing to kill ourselves over. It has no bearing on the next direction of the cosmos in which we are all just a very little part: Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Moslems, Sikhs, pagans and all whoever else!