By Douglas Anele

Most people who believe, uncritically, that there is a normal or natural sexual relation proper for humans do so on the basis of taboo morality derived from antiquated and superstitious religious doctrines. Biologically, human beings may be classified as such without imputing any normative considerations whatsoever. As we already noted, there is no rigid human nature. Human beings as sentient creatures with the capacity to use language and the power of self-consciousness are culturally emergent beings whose values are intimately connected with the doctrines, ideologies and ideals of the societies in which they grew up, all of which are subject to change.

Thus, biologically speaking there is no fixed, unchanging “essence of sex” for humans. The argument that homosexuality is contrary to our cultures and traditions should be seen from a different perspective. Certainly, in traditional communities, there were men and women with homoerotic orientation. But because of the overarching superstitions embedded in traditional sexual morality and the cruel belief that homoerotic relation is a taboo or abomination which attracts severe sanctions, homosexuals and lesbians went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their true sexual feelings. Ignorance about the open-ended nature of human sexuality plus taboo morality derived from religious superstition generates a cultural ambience thoroughly inhospitable to homoeroticism. It follows that the rarity of cases of homosexuality does not mean that there were no same-sex relations in the traditional setting.

From the foregoing, it is definitely incorrect to argue, as vociferous supporters of the anti-gay law do, that the practice is one of the negative behaviours our people copied from the western world. Homosexual orientation is a global phenomenon; so also is the overwhelming negative attitude to it. As recently as six decades ago, the world-famous British mathematician and pioneer of modern computing, Alan Turing, was convicted for “gross indecency,” and as part of his sentence was required to accept oestrogen injections thought at that time to have the effect of redirecting erotic interests. No such effect was observed. His subsequent suicide remains a permanent indictment of the British establishment for intruding in a matter that ought to be left where it belonged – in the private sphere – despite former British Prime Minister  Gordon Brown’s apology to the Turing family in 2009 concerning the gross injustice of the case. The changing attitude towards same-sex relationships in Europe and North America is as a result of increasing acceptance of democratic values of tolerance and human rights, gradual elimination of fixed differences between men and female sexual roles, as well as diffusion of knowledge on the possible deep-rooted biological and socio-psychological basis of homoeroticism.

Keep in mind that there is an element of hypocrisy in the argument that homoeroticism is contrary to African culture. Those who argue this way forget that Christianity and Islam, together with several aspects of our lifestyles, including English language and mode of dressing, are contrary to African culture. In any case, culture should not be too rigid and static. Therefore, if Africans are now more tolerant and accommodating of erotic orientation that was previously considered a taboo, it means that our culture is adaptable enough to allow for differences in human behaviour. Besides, there are several harmful practices in African culture, especially those targeted against women, which those who condemn homosexuality on the ground that it is not part of our culture condone. These include early marriage, female genital mutilation, charms and concoctions for ensuring sexual fidelity in women among others. Men tend to accept all this because they naively believe, falsely, that such practices make women more faithful to their husbands. I am convinced that marrying off a young girl of thirteen, female circumcision and charms for sexual fidelity are more damaging and less conducive to happiness than homosexual relations between two consenting adults.

We now come to an issue I consider of paramount importance in evaluating the rationality of the clampdown on homosexuality, namely, the scientific basis of the anti-gay legislation. That majority of Nigerians support it can be excused probably because they are ignorant. But members of the National Assembly charged with the onerous responsibility of making laws for the well being of Nigerians irrespective of sexual orientation cannot be let off that easily, because they ought to pay attention to research findings relevant to the issue before reaching a decision on the anti-gay bill. Moreover, as a doctorate degree holder in animal science, President Goodluck Jonathan should have consulted scientific literature on determinants of sexual orientation in humans before signing the bill into law. The haste with which the anti-gay legislation was passed without recourse to appropriate scientific knowledge is a symptom of intellectual laziness and unscientific attitude to the problems of governance. The attitude of government officials and generality of Nigerians to issues of vital concern in the society is too simplistic and irrational. But no human problem is simple, nor is there any social problem that can be solved without adequate knowledge.

From the scientific point of view, there are a host of questions that should be addressed before reaching a conclusion about the most appropriate response to homoeroticism. For example, what determinants, including contingent factors and conscious choice, are responsible for the sexual orientation of an individual at any given time? How do these develop and take shape in different cultures? To what extent do prevailing gender roles inform individual psychosexual development? What mechanisms determine distribution of erotic interests in a given population? Why does homoeroticism predominate in some individuals but appears only temporarily in others, while being completely absent in others yet? Why and how do children survive environments hostile to homoeroticism with homosexual tendencies undiminished? How and to what degree are social prohibitions against homoeroticism responsible for producing the very behaviour they purportedly proscribe? In what ways and to what extent are homoerotic dispositions amenable to change, or are adult erotic interests so habituated and entrenched that they are beyond substantial modifications? These questions are amenable to scientific treatment. However, in Nigeria, politicians seldom handle any issue with the level of scientific rigour required for satisfactory solution.

Any person who has taken the trouble to investigate scientific literature on the determinants of sexual orientation in humans know that the issue is incredibly complex, a blending of biological, psychological, sociological and other environmental factors. Hence, there is a broad spectrum of sexual orientations, and none can be rationally defended as the only one natural for humans. Therefore, it is worrisome that the anti-gay law signed by Mr. President has given legal backing to the cruel-minded discrimination, intolerance, hostility and indifference towards homosexuals and lesbians in Nigeria, not to talk of the fact that these very negative attitudes are already functionally entrenched in private decisions and discourse shielded from public scrutiny and criticism.

In my opinion, it is wrong to discriminate against people with homoerotic sexual behaviour, even if it was wholly a matter of conscious choice without any biological factor playing a role since, as I have argued earlier, the choice of sexual partner should be a matter for individuals to make; the government or society has no business there.

CONCLUDED.