From irate anti-gay youth demonstrating against homosexuality to passionate partying gays, the subject of homosexuality has begun to make the news recently – and often too. In typical Ghanaian ostrich style, we’ve largely ignored the subject and except that by some stroke of magic it would all disappear. It’s from the foregoing that I would somewhat agree with Nana Oye Lithur’s comments: “I think we should try and understand the situation. If we don’t discuss it as a country, how do we overcome the problem?” Agreed Nana, but that’s only how far I can agree with you. I would like to throw a bit of light of the subject in a bid to persuade you to rethink your position that it is a ‘sexual orientation to which people [are] at liberty to make a preference.’ (Tense changed for congruity). If I have recently found that I have a liking to marijuana, would you permit me to indulge in it on the grounds of preference or freedom of expression? If another begins to express his desire for beasts, would you suggest we legalize or permit him to abuse every goat or dog as suits his fancy? What if Nana, one or two other people preferred ten and twelve year olds? Would you glow with pride to know you’ve allowed him to sex your own child? Clearly, we cannot grant people the liberty to do as they prefer – there will be pandemonium. This points us to one cardinal tenet of life: there can be only one truth about any given situation. Your shirt, dear Nana, cannot be black and white at the same time. The simple law of excluded middle suggests that it can’t be both! Homosexuality is not a preference we’re at liberty to choose; it’s a preference we’re able to reject in favour of what is true and right: heterosexuality. Let me in these few lines try to help our readers understand the situation so we might be better placed to curb the situation and minimize its toll. I will address three or four popular ideas in this piece: Homosexuals are born NOT made The idea is rife among the homosexual community that they were born that way. It’s the easy way out. Blame someone else; best yet blame nature and carry right on with your indulgence. Research tells us sufficiently that homosexuality is an issue of “nurture” and NOT “nature.” W.J. Gadpaille has noted that there are two distinct theoretical positions: biological and environmental. That is to say that it’s how we’re nurtured that contributes to our development of this proclivity rather than a nature given to us at birth. Whether it’s the research of Simon LeVay or Bailley & Pillard or any newer entrants, one cannot prove a gay gene. Space only allows an adumbration: LeVay’s work studied part of the hypothalamus (brain) of some dead people as he tried to establish that differences in size (onf the INAH3) accounted for people’s homosexuality. It was inconclusive work because the sexuality of these dead people wasn’t prior known and he admitted that he was biased in trying to justify his own orientation. Bailley and Pillard and others did some work among twins and again, their results were inconclusive and in most cases contradictory. Simon Levay is said to have admitted: “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Sigmund Freud is known to have focused on ‘disordered parent-child’ relationships as a potential cause of homosexuality. Elizabeth Moberly, one of the more recent writers has authored a book Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, in which she suggests parent-child relationships, could be at the root (her position is with the same-sex parent whereas others suggest the opposite-sex parent). Since this is a social problem, we cannot pin it to the mosquitoes-cause-malaria logic. In other words, we cannot eradicate enough mosquitoes to quickly remove the canker. What is key is that whether it’s the same-sex or opposite-sex parent, the problem is with the family system and if we can get that right, it will greatly improve the situation. Might I add that the need for acceptance by the same-sex colleagues is a normal feeling but it is the eroticizing of this need that introduces the abnormality (Wilson). Dr Earl Wilson in his book Counseling and Homosexuality says “the fact that homo-emotional needs are often, though by no means always, eroticized, has tended to distract attention from the significance of the homosexual condition in itself. Homosexuality is a symptom of a deeper need: acceptance/recognition. This brings me to the next point: Killing all the homosexuals will solve the problem I read with morbid shock the suggestions that commentators make on various online blogs/sites about the need to kill homosexuals. If you remember any Bible history at all, God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah did not solve the problem. This has far-reaching implications. Removing the people is not the solution, helping them change is and that’s why following Sodom God has enabled us to overcome any desires at variance with his moral law. No matter how many thieves we put away in prison, we will still have a challenge with thieves. We might not be able to totally eliminate thievery but we can reduce it to quite a minimum if the right approach is taking. To kill them is to hack at the leaves when the roots are firmly planted in the ground. Eventually it will all sprout right back into a full grown tree. We need to dig in and find the root cause and deal with it rather than tout the view expressed in the next point: Homosexuality was brought by the white man We’re quick to blame the white man for everything. Even as far back as our parent’s days they knew of such occurrences although they were far less frequent. Ask your grannies and they will throw terms like “supi” at you. I cannot dispute that westernization and maybe modernization may have contributed to this speed of growth but we must acknowledge this existed before. For those interested, I would direct you to Google “motsoalle” and find out more about the history of homosexuality particularly with the African context in mind. Entire books have been written on this. Dr Dela Attipoe of blessed memory conducted a landmark study on men having sex with men and HIV in which he identified various causes for people indulging in homosexuality. He essentially suggested that there are those who truly identify themselves as gay, those who indulge in it for economic reasons and those who are half foot on the former turf and half foot on the latter. The white men can be blamed for the economic reason but recent occurrences and news suggests some “big” Ghanaian men and women are involved as well. Dr Attipoe’s entire study is available at www.thegully.com . It will prove instructive for anyone interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon in Ghana. As an aside, all those touting that party A’s officials or party B’s officials are gay or proponents for homosexuality will do well to rethink their position and stop meddling in such cheap politics. It’s essential that we realize that if we’re to deal with the situation the politicking must cease! Even animals know better or don’t indulge in it Again this is the opinion of the uninformed masses. All one needs to do is Google “homosexuality among animals” and the resources abound – text, videos and hard research/facts. It was barely a year ago that I overheard some guys teasing another’s dog for being gay – quite ludicrous I know but just evidence that even dogs chance behave the same. Trying to scare people or better still shame them with the comparison to animals does little, if anything at all to help assuage the situation. The next time you’re tempted to advance that line of argument, please re-think. Whether the animals learnt the behavior from us humans or when through some form of emotional metamorphoses, zoologists can best tell. These ideas which we have almost religiously held do not make for a proper understanding of the situation and thus its resolution and minimization. Nana and dear readers, I could well go on another 20 pages giving details of research and hard facts which would make absolute balderdash of the idea that homosexuality is a choice we must allow people to exercise as and when they will. Dr Attipoe’s suggestion that “denial or wishing it away is not the solution,” is apt. On a very low level of thought, can one for a moment fathom what the end of mankind would be or how mankind would perpetuate if everyone gravitated towards this disposition? Have you thought about the ramifications of your suggestions to allow everyone to do as they prefer to (by implication from your assertion)? Nana, there are absolutes and morality has NO grey areas. I would recommend “Kofi and Ama, not Kofi and Ahmed: a counter perspective on rights and homosexuality” for those looking for a logic and philosophy-based argument on the absolute standards of morality. This piece is intended to be simple and straightforward. How do we get out of this quandary? That’s the difficult part. I believe it begins with the family system. Mothers and fathers must model for their children a proper example of fatherhood and motherhood and affirm them in their unique identities. There must be sufficient love shared around and children should be encouraged and coached. Sexuality must be discussed as soon as possible and children must be engaged by parents on this subject. Though so-called “religious gabble” tends to be untenable in supposedly high levels of academia, I cannot help but turn in this argument: God, in a living relationship through Jesus Christ and a sound family system presents the only sound lasting solution to the problem. The Bible in Romans 1:21ff suggests that because we do not recognize God as creator, he has given us over to a reprobate mind and we have exchanged natural affections for unnatural ones. Clearly, we have become a law unto ourselves and thereby have tried to create rules which violate God’s sovereign plan for sexuality. Again “Kofi and Ama, not Kofi and Ahmed” cited earlier treats this well. Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias asks four cardinal questions about life: origin, meaning, morality and destiny. The cardinal issue of morality cannot be defined without an absolute standard and it is in consequence to this that I suggest that a return to Biblical admonitions and way of life offers our only hope to curb this situation lastingly. In response to the question whether a person could live a Christian (and by implication) a moral life with such proclivities Dr Zacharias answered in the affirmative and quoted the example of Henry Nouwen. Henry Nouwen (a priest and Catholic writer) admitted to having homosexual proclivities much of his life but he never acted on them but expressed angst at his feelings. I can confidently say this is possible and we would all do well to suggest the same rather than promote the eroticization of needs that can be met at a deeper level without sex. I hope this piece has been enlightening and I will try to write again shedding more light on this subject as questions and comments arise. Yes, “denial or wishing it away” is not the solution. Let’s talk about it but more importantly let’s love it out of our communities, homes, Churches and schools and give our brothers and sisters another chance to be what God truly fashioned them to be: humans (definitely not gays)! By Sidney Laud Schandorf Email: sschandorf@hotmail.com Author’s note You’re at liberty to print, share, and reproduce this document in any form provided it does not violate the terms of the source from which you read it and that the authors cited herein are properly cited.