A response: Even ''debunked'' myths may have some truth, still
In a recent blog-post, a young Ugandan named Kwezi Tabaro, argues quite elaborately for the scientific case of the gay-debate; and despite a tendency towards dismissing the importance of an ethical/moral ingredient in all decisions involving human society, he remains scientifically honest by admitting the inchoate nature of scientific findings thus far.
Without doubt, I think that his essay was engaging and intellectually provocative. He offers several views from several angles that testify in every way to an objective, rational mind.
If I may add my voice to the debate Mr. Tabaro, I like to believe, sought to ignite, and not to smother - I feel that the greatest 'dynamite' in the gay debate in Uganda, Africa and much of the still quasi-traditional and so-called conservative world (including the US, which is arguably the most statistically homophobic country on the planet), is not because homosexual practice is un-natural or deviant to the norm, but because it is pegged to sexuality - perhaps the most regulated and 'sensitive' aspect of human inter-relations.
To illustrate my point, there are several other areas of social-activity in which people can and have deviated from the norm - and yet society remains mostly indifferent to them, given that these are essentially non-sexual practices.
For instance, no one will care much whether you sleep on a mat or king-sized bed, not many will care whether you choose a bald-head or an Afro-do for a hair-style, not many will care if you are a vegetarian or a meat-eater etc ... and the few that may, have purely personal-preference qualms, and will not bother to find-out if these are lifestyle choices or genetic pre-dispositions, when they attempt to voice disagreement.
This then brings me to the argument that most homosexual activity around town is an 'alternative' lifestyle issue - as opposed to it being about genetic inclination - which is the nexus of Mr. Tabaro's treatise.
More and more young men are flocking into homosexual bars in Kampala simply out of 'doses' of unhealthy curiosity, but mostly, because it is financially rewarding to be a homosexual prostitute; perhaps even more rewarding than heterosexual harlotry at the moment.
Rich homosexual patrons seek younger partners for 'excitement' .. which greatly evidences the strange advanced 'age' syndrome of most homosexual husbands, but also deeply entrenches this form of prostitution, given the financial incentive.
In the same way therefore that you cannot claim heterosexual prostitution is genetic - you would be a little 'misled' to make a similar claim for gay whoring.
And since we live in a society largely governed by monetary economy, where people do all manner of things, legal and illegal simply to get a shilling in their pockets .. I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent to 'legalize' a habit that has proven itself so financially attractive - genetics or no - while illegal!
And finally - if I may try and address the (I believe) small minority of 'genuine' homosexuals ... I don't think it is right to treat a 'sick' person as healthy.
A suicidal person, or a psychotic person cannot be deemed normal - even if they are within their biological and physiological 'right' to be sick - since none of us chooses disease or pathology.
Classifying this person as 'healthy' and leaving them to their own devices endangers both them-self and the wider society - and speaks volumes about the 'moral' turpitude or bestial, ethical-emptiness of the society that permits it.
A society that allows its members to destroy themselves is not 'civilized' or refined enough to be considered serious. At best - it is an 'animal' society - where each individual is their own law-executor and law-maker.
I bet this is why science loves the good old experimentation-approach with so-called lower animals. Since these lower creatures have no concept of a moral universe, they, unlike humans, serve science so well as guinea-pigs and as a basis for drawing conclusions on animal behavior that is divorced from the uniquely human quality of a moral-imparting conscience.
Tabaro, who's article this post is a response to, gave the ideal example of sicklers (sickle-cell sufferers) in his article; where science has proven that this genetic condition gives its sufferers the biological advantage of resistance to malaria.
It still doesn't make them normal or healthy people - though.
A biological advantage should not automatically connote a desirable state. If this were the case - then scientists should enhance the 'sickler' gene in un-born children and/or living humans to eradicate malaria - a disease that is still life-threatening for most of the world.
By logical extension - even if it is eventually proven that this genetic disposition to homosexuality is factual, scientists still have their work cut-out in proving if there is a health benefit to homosexuality that heterosexuals are unable to access; and if this peculiar health benefit embellishes life on the whole.
Indeed - my own thinking at the moment is that homosexuality should be treated purely as a genetic pathology, or mental psychopathy.
I concur that attempts to treat it purely as a moral iniquity are both misleading and subjective; steeped in sanctimonious religious dogma and bound to result in a vicious cycle of counter-recrimination.
And in the same way that we isolate and rehabilitate other sufferers of pathology and/or psychopathy, for the sake of treatment and a reversion to the normal/desirable, we should isolate and rehabilitate homosexual 'sufferers'.
Gay people - rather than being condemned as sources of evil, should be looked upon sympathetically as the victims of one of three 'evil' phenomenon;
1. A genetic illness; In which case micro-biologists, instead of celebrating the discovery, should be had at work to see how best to eliminate the gene from the human genome and save future generations from grappling with dilemmas like ours.
2. A damagingly conscious life-style; In which case we should guide and direct younger, more impressionable members of society against unhealthy lifestyles that appear fashionable, but may result in, as is scientifically proven, a higher risk of contracting HIV and other STD s compared to heterosexual sexuality, courtesy of the anal-sex that is inseparable from homosexual practice, and/or incontinent bowels.
3. An adverse employment option; In which case we should expand and improve the state of our economy so that young women don't need to view their vagina as a means of livelihood, and in this case, young men needn't view their anal orifices as an avenue to their dream car.
Surumani.
Find Mr. Tabaro's article here; https://kwezitabaro.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/homosexuality-debunking-the-un-scientific-myth/
Without doubt, I think that his essay was engaging and intellectually provocative. He offers several views from several angles that testify in every way to an objective, rational mind.
If I may add my voice to the debate Mr. Tabaro, I like to believe, sought to ignite, and not to smother - I feel that the greatest 'dynamite' in the gay debate in Uganda, Africa and much of the still quasi-traditional and so-called conservative world (including the US, which is arguably the most statistically homophobic country on the planet), is not because homosexual practice is un-natural or deviant to the norm, but because it is pegged to sexuality - perhaps the most regulated and 'sensitive' aspect of human inter-relations.
To illustrate my point, there are several other areas of social-activity in which people can and have deviated from the norm - and yet society remains mostly indifferent to them, given that these are essentially non-sexual practices.
For instance, no one will care much whether you sleep on a mat or king-sized bed, not many will care whether you choose a bald-head or an Afro-do for a hair-style, not many will care if you are a vegetarian or a meat-eater etc ... and the few that may, have purely personal-preference qualms, and will not bother to find-out if these are lifestyle choices or genetic pre-dispositions, when they attempt to voice disagreement.
This then brings me to the argument that most homosexual activity around town is an 'alternative' lifestyle issue - as opposed to it being about genetic inclination - which is the nexus of Mr. Tabaro's treatise.
More and more young men are flocking into homosexual bars in Kampala simply out of 'doses' of unhealthy curiosity, but mostly, because it is financially rewarding to be a homosexual prostitute; perhaps even more rewarding than heterosexual harlotry at the moment.
Rich homosexual patrons seek younger partners for 'excitement' .. which greatly evidences the strange advanced 'age' syndrome of most homosexual husbands, but also deeply entrenches this form of prostitution, given the financial incentive.
In the same way therefore that you cannot claim heterosexual prostitution is genetic - you would be a little 'misled' to make a similar claim for gay whoring.
And since we live in a society largely governed by monetary economy, where people do all manner of things, legal and illegal simply to get a shilling in their pockets .. I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent to 'legalize' a habit that has proven itself so financially attractive - genetics or no - while illegal!
And finally - if I may try and address the (I believe) small minority of 'genuine' homosexuals ... I don't think it is right to treat a 'sick' person as healthy.
A suicidal person, or a psychotic person cannot be deemed normal - even if they are within their biological and physiological 'right' to be sick - since none of us chooses disease or pathology.
Classifying this person as 'healthy' and leaving them to their own devices endangers both them-self and the wider society - and speaks volumes about the 'moral' turpitude or bestial, ethical-emptiness of the society that permits it.
A society that allows its members to destroy themselves is not 'civilized' or refined enough to be considered serious. At best - it is an 'animal' society - where each individual is their own law-executor and law-maker.
I bet this is why science loves the good old experimentation-approach with so-called lower animals. Since these lower creatures have no concept of a moral universe, they, unlike humans, serve science so well as guinea-pigs and as a basis for drawing conclusions on animal behavior that is divorced from the uniquely human quality of a moral-imparting conscience.
Tabaro, who's article this post is a response to, gave the ideal example of sicklers (sickle-cell sufferers) in his article; where science has proven that this genetic condition gives its sufferers the biological advantage of resistance to malaria.
It still doesn't make them normal or healthy people - though.
A biological advantage should not automatically connote a desirable state. If this were the case - then scientists should enhance the 'sickler' gene in un-born children and/or living humans to eradicate malaria - a disease that is still life-threatening for most of the world.
By logical extension - even if it is eventually proven that this genetic disposition to homosexuality is factual, scientists still have their work cut-out in proving if there is a health benefit to homosexuality that heterosexuals are unable to access; and if this peculiar health benefit embellishes life on the whole.
Indeed - my own thinking at the moment is that homosexuality should be treated purely as a genetic pathology, or mental psychopathy.
I concur that attempts to treat it purely as a moral iniquity are both misleading and subjective; steeped in sanctimonious religious dogma and bound to result in a vicious cycle of counter-recrimination.
And in the same way that we isolate and rehabilitate other sufferers of pathology and/or psychopathy, for the sake of treatment and a reversion to the normal/desirable, we should isolate and rehabilitate homosexual 'sufferers'.
Gay people - rather than being condemned as sources of evil, should be looked upon sympathetically as the victims of one of three 'evil' phenomenon;
1. A genetic illness; In which case micro-biologists, instead of celebrating the discovery, should be had at work to see how best to eliminate the gene from the human genome and save future generations from grappling with dilemmas like ours.
2. A damagingly conscious life-style; In which case we should guide and direct younger, more impressionable members of society against unhealthy lifestyles that appear fashionable, but may result in, as is scientifically proven, a higher risk of contracting HIV and other STD s compared to heterosexual sexuality, courtesy of the anal-sex that is inseparable from homosexual practice, and/or incontinent bowels.
3. An adverse employment option; In which case we should expand and improve the state of our economy so that young women don't need to view their vagina as a means of livelihood, and in this case, young men needn't view their anal orifices as an avenue to their dream car.
Surumani.
Find Mr. Tabaro's article here; https://kwezitabaro.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/homosexuality-debunking-the-un-scientific-myth/
Comments
Post a Comment