By Douglas Anele

Homoeroticism or homosexual relation, simply put, is erotic desire for, and sexual activity between, members of the same sex. Most traditional accounts of the origin of eroticism attribute it to supernatural beings that created woman and man for the purpose of procreation.

In the fourth century B.C., Plato, the iconic ancient Greek philosopher, invented an imaginary story that attributed the origins of sexual desire to punishment by Zeus, the greatest national deity of Greece. In the myth, Zeus punished the first human beings for irreverent and obstinate conduct by dividing them into two. Ever since, erotic love, the unceasing desire to reunite lost halves, is the enduring repercussion of that punishment. Interestingly, Plato’s mythological account described sexual entanglements in both heterosexual and homosexual relations.

More than two thousand five hundred years after Plato, the debate about the origin, meaning and morality of homoeroticism has become more contentious, particularly because of revolutionary developments in knowledge in all its ramifications over the centuries. As a corollary, unprecedented changes in human socio-cultural evolution have necessitated fundamental changes in conceptions of the meaning of gender differences in humans and how such differences determine erotic desires, interests and behaviours.

In Nigeria, the question concerning homosexuality and deviant erotic and sexual behaviours has not received as much critical and sustained attention as it has in the developed countries of Europe and North America, probably because Nigerians, for quasi-religious and moral reasons, feel uncomfortable with topics related to sex. But the near total silence on homoeroticism was broken several years ago during the Presidency of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, when some government officials and religious leaders recommended that homoerotic or homosexual relationships should be proscribed. Indeed, two anti-homosexual bills had been proposed since 2006, but the National Assembly passed none of them. At that time, I was one of the very few who openly criticised the idea of government dictating the sexual practices of adults on the basis of antiquated religious and moral sentiments devoid of relevant scientific knowledge.

Unfortunately, in January President Goodluck Jonathan signed a bill that criminalises same-sex relationships. Even as the National Assembly was debating the bill, some western countries mounted pressure on the Nigerian government to respect gay and lesbian rights. The pressure did not work: in May 2013, federal lawmakers passed the draconian bill, which prescribes long jail term and bans gay marriage, same-sex “amorous relationships” and membership of gay rights groups. Nevertheless, President Jonathan delayed signing it into law, apparently to consult widely and ascertain the opinion of a broad section of Nigerians before doing so.

Specifically, the anti-gay bill stipulates that persons who enter into a same-sex marriage contract or civil union commit an offence and are each liable on conviction to a term of fourteen years in prison. Any individual who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies and organisations or directly or indirectly makes public show of same-sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a term of ten years in prison.

As in much of sub-Saharan Africa and in the continent generally, anti-gay sentiment and persecution of homosexuals is rife in Nigeria. Therefore, it is not surprising that majority of Nigerians supported, and still support, the new legislation. Keep in mind that under existing Nigerian federal law, sodomy is punishable by imprisonment, but this bill provides for a much broader crackdown on homosexuals and lesbians, who already live a largely underground existence. While the United States and some European countries, most recently France, have moved to offer homosexual and lesbian couples the same legal rights enjoyed by heterosexuals, many African countries are seeking to tighten laws against homosexuality.

After President Jonathan signed the bill, Britain and a few western countries threatened to cut aid, a punitive measure that helped slow down the pace of passing anti-homoerotic legislation in aid-dependent nations such as Malawi and Uganda. Unfortunately, Uganda has also passed its own version of the law, which provoked reprisal attacks on homosexuals and lesbians in the country and campaigns by human rights groups for the abrogation of the law, especially the part of it that prescribes a dress code for women. It must be remarked that western countries have little leverage over Nigeria, whose budget largely depends on revenue derived from crude oil sales.

The pertinent question now is, why did the anti-homoeroticism bill that failed twice to pass through the National Assembly during Chief Obasanjo’s administration succeed this time around? In my opinion, the major reason is that President Jonathan, who is widely expected to seek re-election in 2015 but is under pressure after several dozen lawmakers and a handful of state governors defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC), is doing everything possible to improve his electability in the next presidential elections. Hence, signing such a popular but inherently retrogressive bill into law creates the impression that Mr. President is a “listening leader” sensitive to the culture and religious beliefs of the people, and is prepared to reflect their views in decision-making process at the highest level.

In addition, given the fact that homosexuals and lesbians constitute a tiny and voiceless segment of the Nigerian population, advocacy for their sexual rights is virtually non-existent and, therefore, there is no social momentum or pressure against discriminatory anti-gay legislation. I think that the National Assembly passed the law promptly in order to win public support and divert attention from the scandals rocking it at the time. Allegations of bribery and corruption against members of some committees in the Senate and House of Representatives had dented the image of the federal legislators. Naturally, legislators who voted in favour of the bill felt that passing a law which resonates with popular sentiment can at least restore some credibility to the National Assembly and discourage relentless criticism of the cash-and-carry attitude rampant there.

But beyond the narrow-minded and egoistic political calculations which made President Jonathan and members of the National Assembly to approve the anti-gay law, is there any good reason for enacting such a discriminatory piece of legislation that permits government intrusion into a matter that properly belongs to the private sphere? Supporters of the anti-gay law marshalled several arguments to justify it. To begin with, they argue from the religious perspective that homosexuality is unnatural, that it is contrary to the divine plan or design for sex between woman and man. Proponents of this view believe that the primary, God-ordained purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. Every other thing connected to it, including sex as an intimate expression of mutual love, as an avenue to control or minimise concupiscence, and as an avenue for mutual pleasure is secondary. Furthermore, they cite relevant portions of religious scriptures to buttress the claim that God intended sexual intercourse between the two sexes only primarily as a means of replenishing the human population, and also refer to other portions that describe unorthodox modes of sexual practice as sin deserving of severe punishment.

Now, a cluster of problems arises from theological condemnations of homoeroticism. Aside from the assumption of the existence of God, there is the added difficulty of ascertaining exactly God’s plan for sex in humans, even if such a being exists. Recourse to divine revelation to resolve the issue cannot help much, because different religions provide contradictory injunctions, all of which purportedly originate from God. Similarly, appeal to nature or to “natural law” does not resolve serious difficulties confronting any claims about discovering the natural or normal functions or relations proper to human beings.

To be continued.