Ghanaian Militants Campaigning for Homosexuality and Nudism
Certain emboldened few Ghanaians have emerged from the woods, vociferously defending the course of gayness in Africa in general, and Ghana in particular. They have advanced well-researched reasons why Ghana should conform to the orders unilaterally issued by the British Prime Minister David Cameron and the US President Barack Obama obliging Ghana to adhere to gay rights. Ghana will suffer the withdrawal of foreign aid that our Finance Ministers over the years have factored into our annual budget statement as a major component of revenue without which the budget is never complete. These Ghanaian advocates resident abroad have convincingly advanced both historical and evolutionary reasons in support of compelling Ghana openly embrace homosexuality. How ironic that is.
What I consider as incongruous behaviour by these advocates is the fact that they have allowed confrontational White supremacy or Black inferiority complexities to threaten or contaminate their own African values. They seem to hold the opinion that Ghanaians always have to do according as requested or suggested by the superior White contemporary. Ghana, to them, should act in uniformity with the Whites on their acceptable social vices but sadly far removed from their technological parameter. Could believing anything coming from "the White is right" idea not have clouded their mind's eye and thinking vision? Could what I see as their erroneous way of thinking probably not the truth in the end? The historical argument advanced to buttress their contention that gayness is right and that Ghanaians have to uphold it is born out of the fact that homosexuality has existed since the days of the biblical Lot, finally resulting in the Sodom and Gomorrah episode? They also claim lesbianism has existed among our Ghanaian female students since the introduction of Boarding Secondary and Tertiary education.
Should an illness traceable to family foundation, thus, genetic, be allowed to torment a patient onto death or the medical doctors are to find a cure for it? Should the doctors in this case refuse the patient treatment because it is a family disease dating since his or her forebears and that they can never, or should never, heal it? Should we not try to limit or stop the spread of homosexuality, which is, but like a disgraceful leprous disease tormenting human beings? The length of its existence as historically proven is irrelevant. It is like cancer disease that medics and researchers are tirelessly fighting to find a cure though it is difficult; they are never daunted but keep persevering.
Additionally, homosexuality is practiced in many countries worldwide so what do Ghanaians care, the advocates question. They vehemently resent the Ghanaian sanctimonious comments and attacks on homosexual immorality. Anyway, are there also not many countries where gayness is a crime punishable by death or imprisonment? "Homosexuality in Islam is not only a sin, but a crime under Islamic law. The fear of offending Islamic sensibilities and enraging the Muslim populous has effectively silenced the free world in many areas" The double standard by the Western world is quite unbelievable and stigmatically reprehensible. They should ask their friends the Saudis to open up their doors wide for the practice of homosexuality if they have that unbiased political and moral power.
Let Britain and the US withheld their financial aid to Ghana, as the condition for its release is ridiculously abominable. What is good about same-sex relationship, I want to know? What is sweeter about anal sexual gratification pursued by these rouges called gays that opposite sex-relationship cannot march or better? Gays by their sexual practice cannot produce children yet some want to have children. They secure donor female eggs, donate their sperm and have them artificially inseminated in surrogate mothers. They do this to help grace their very existence as reproductive human beings in a way, either direct or indirect. Could their desire to reproduce children not have been simpler if they were straight couples?
Sooner, the devil advocates out there making the Western world happy by agitating for homosexual rights in Ghana will front for the militants' quest for Ghana to go top-free. Going naked in what is naturism is also in practice in some civilized world. Those involving in that practice claim it as their human right. Will the West not in future ask us to legalise naturism when some probable mentally disoriented or sick Ghanaians as usual decide to come out as nudists, believing that is also their rightful way to live? Shall we always do as instructed by the Whites regardless how immoral such requests may seem to us as Ghanaians? Sadly, some Ghanaians always jump to the defence of apparent immoralities and crimes just to satisfy their hidden selfish interests. On the other hand, what I may prefer to say apparent whims and caprices? Those Ghanaians defending homosexuality are accusing the critics of gayness of primitivism of Stone age peoples. I wish their siblings, children and friends with themselves inclusive turn gays.
I direct the following question to the ardent sympathisers of gayness. Which of these two would you prefer to see dominate the world, polygamy or gayness? The Whites hate to hear about polygamous marriages in whatever form or shape it takes. Alternatively, they support gayness and gay marriages. Since Africans are rooted in polygamy, the Whites see them as uncivilized. They also derogatorily tag certain African cultures seen not to conform to their taste and way of living. In order for the African with the Ghanaian gay sympathisers inclusive be seen as civilised or attempting to shed their shackles of slavery and cloaks of primitiveness, they have to clamour in support of gay rights and any vice seen to be practiced by the Whites. The supporters of gay rights who write to bash the critics of gays may please bow down their heads in shame for letting down their rich-inhered culture of straight marriage.
Will Ghanaians lend support to some militants I hear are about to agitate for public nude rights in what to them is living the natural way of life? How unsightly will it be should it succeed, with small, medium and big penises dangling in-between men's legs with same sizes of vulvae situated in females' legs? Wonders really will never cease, so they say. "Naturism or nudism is a cultural and political movement practicing, advocating and defending social nudity in private and in public. It may also refer to a lifestyle based on personal, family and/or social nudism".