|
Rome did not fall in a day;
neither did its greatness start with a homosexual convention
E. Ablorh-Odjidja
September 4, 2006
It has happened before, the
importation of new norms and ideas.
This time, the effort to set up a homosexual convention
in Ghana is the latest example.
At an age when some will fight to
keep untested influences out, some Ghanaians are in a hurry to
bring them into our country.
Colombian drug barons came.
When powerful countries were pushing them out, we
casually looked the other way.
For, once an idea is out there,
never mind how toxic, trust some Ghanaians to bring it back
home; for reasons of profit, the perceived notoriety, or
self-promotion as tolerant, progressive, and, therefore, the
relevant member of the society.
So, here comes the proposal for a
homosexual convention in Accra.
Nothing to do with drug importation, but everything to do
with an attack on a cultural norm of our country. Hence, I
suspect, a toxic idea to many.
But some want it.
Missing, as a priority in the thoughts of the gay
proponent is the state of our development, its conditions, and
the disruptive costs this peculiar lifestyle might bring.
Homosexuality, as a frontline
issue in Ghana, has not been the case until recently.
Intolerance of the practice has
nothing to do with hatred of another human being.
It is the practice that is abhorred for normative
reasons.
But, why a convention in Ghana
when there exist already communities elsewhere that have
homosexual-friendly morals? In the attack, the brazenness of
the proposal, is the answer.
Africa, always a bastion against
the lifestyle, must be breached.
And Ghana is chosen for the advocacy because it seems to
them to be the weakest spot in the defensive line in Africa.
For the proponents, Ghana is
already vulnerable to the idea and specially made so by some
within, at the bidding of foreign influences, who can be used in
this breach on the culture.
The brazenness of the proposal
couldn't have happened in Nigeria.
If recent religious outbursts against homosexuality in
Nigeria have any significance, as in many parts of Africa, the
hostility to the idea is very large.
The decision to locate the
convention in Ghana must have been based on the complex
character of the Ghanaian; mostly assumed to be more benign than
the Nigerian.
But benign or not, homosexuality
is still a taboo in Ghana, just as it is in Nigeria and other
parts of the continent.
The taboo is deeply rooted in the culture.
And for ages, the anti-sentiment has placed enormous
social and psychological pressures on a few in society.
But it has to be noted that it is
the practice, not the person, that is resented and has nothing
comparable to do with racism.
The culture doesn't ask whether
homosexuals must exist.
It asks whether the license to practice it at will is the
most ardent existential need as is being pushed by the West.
For the Ghanaian culture,
procreation is the overall desire for gender relationships.
Homosexuals, by their practice, do not procreate, and,
therefore, do not add to the biological growth of the community,
hence the taboo.
In Ghana as elsewhere in Africa,
the need to keep the gender lines clear for procreation is
urgent.
Thanks to the modern age, some
having found freedom from cultural restrictions, have grown
quite hubristic to accept the homosexual trend as a civilized
and sophisticated desire.
It is among these so-called
sophisticated that the outside promoters for homosexuality have
found the niche to accelerate the practice for universal
acceptance in Africa.
And Ghana, in this sense, has
become the soft underbelly of the recalcitrant African culture;
the beachhead for homosexual advocacy in Africa.
Fortunately, the Ghanaian
government is resisting the convention.
But knowing the intensity with
which this group advocates, and the intent of the West to always
put Africa on the back foot, the pressure on Ghana is going to
be relentless; hoping that the advocacy can grind the culture
into acceptance, thereby turning the country into a
homosexual-friendly destination.
Along the way, the advocacy may
result in more recruitments.
But at what cost, bearing in mind that countries like
Ghana are not the most economically agile?
New homosexuals may come to the
lifestyle for economic reasons.
Like in the drug culture and prostitution do, this can
happen.
The recruit who otherwise would
have been a heterosexual may now perform otherwise.
For reasons of the rampant fixed
poverty condition in the society, he could turn to prostitution
of the homosexual kind, thereby a new social problem would rear
its head. For instance, the
expansion of homosexual prostitution into sex tourism.
There are health issues to
consider too, apart from the constraint on procreation, which is
a major concern for the culture.
For example, we know the heavy
impact of HIV within the heterosexual community, even without
adding increases in sexual tourism. Under the old pattern,
the worry was that some under-aged young women could get
recruited for the trade.
And now we would be opening the
trade for gullible young males without jobs.
Soon, we can become homosexual
prostitution-friendly destinations.
The destination choice for cheap sex, considering the
disparity in economic conditions between Europe and Africa, for
example.
For a price, youths, who are not
necessarily homosexuals by nature, can stifle their natural
desire, put the brakes on the cultural taboo and attract the new
sexual tourist into the country
No need to point out only the
sexual angle. But
when seen from the racial perspective, a dalliance between a
comparatively rich European tourist and a poor Ghanaian may
point to exploitation.
On top of all the complex
socio-economic problems that we have had at the instigations
from the West, is the promotion of homosexuality the best way to
heal our woes in Africa?
Homosexuality
for now presents a complex social cost.
But the West, as usual, doesn’t care.
Under the guise of human compassion, they will continue
to search for pleasure and advantages at our expense.
There is no need for countries in
Africa to accept this culturally debilitating cost now.
The psychological damage and the dehumanizing aspects of the
practice can be too much for our fragile societies.
Though the convention has been
rejected, the promoters still have some victory won. It has
been a huge global advert and acceptance of the idea has also
been tested and prodded onto center stage, in the face of all
the cultural odds.
And despite the idea being
promoted as a human right issue, the push for acceptance is as
culturally an imposition as any the West has done so far.
The gay African activist, an
infinitesimal minority lodged in a culture that abhors the
practice, would not have been bold enough to suggest a
convention anywhere on the continent, but for the support and
prodding from outside promoters.
The homosexual African activist
is adding to the turmoil that faces Africa and the death knell
of depopulation that the West already sees as advantageous to
them.
Considering the obscene
atmosphere that passes at such conventions in the West; as seen
in parades in cities like San Francisco and New York, the
pissing in the streets, and the accompanying vulgar acts in
daylight, it may be good for Africa to consider these
consequences.
Africa is in no position to
handle the decadent lifestyle that comes with this convention.
The protections that wealth brings to decadence are not in any
of our countries yet.
And Ghana is nowhere near where
Rome was before its collapse. But, sadly, it may be heading that
way without the glory that Rome attained before it fell.
For now, it is refreshing to note
that the government of Ghana is against the convention.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2006
|
