In keeping to my promise regarding the continuation of one of my previous posts on same sex marriage, I offer this write-up as a show of my position on the subject matter.
Given my profession as a Social Worker/Human Behavioural Scientist, it is inherent as part of my professional ideals to conform to the values of self-determination and a non-judgemental attitude. It is on this ground that my soft spot for the gay population is predicated and I would at no time, associate them with bestiality.
I must say that I hold nothing against the gay population because people make choices. To be gay is a choice as it is also a choice to be a thief. However, it is obvious that the choices of people must have certainly been influenced either by intra-psychic factors or by the external environment. Therefore, it is necessary that we first ascertain what influences the decision of any gay before reaching our conclusions. The gay might just have a justifiable reason. This would definitely help professionals within the counselling field and the general masses.
I understand creation’s justification for sexual relationships which must involve a male and a female and consequently, procreation. This very fact has been the definition of the normative marriage system. Nonetheless, I must as well say that creation in no way did not limit the human mind as humans have made their lives better and constantly seek satisfaction via relational and technological inventions and innovations coming from the limitless mind. Same sex marriage is one of the inventions targeted at making a group of persons satisfied and in no way should people be deprived of their satisfaction.
It will be wrong if we condemn the gay population for their actions but it will be better if their attentions are kindly drawn to the consequences. We must now learn how to separate the sin from the sinner though I don’t imply labelling anyone a sinner. The consequence of the practice of gay phenomena is vivid in constitutional implications and above all, culture. I choose not to go by religion because it is not binding on everyone, since we have several religious beliefs for several people.
In reconciling the choice of a gay, the constitution must be key, as regards its definition of marriage. If marriage is constitutionally defined properly with appropriate lexicons (man, woman and procreation), then, there must be the need for the gay to reconsider his choice within the framework of the state or better still naturalize in states having its approval. Thus, where such a definition is lacking, we lack grounds to antagonise or castigate the gay.
Culture is super-organic and a way of life for a people. It is in this light that the government must ensure that its constitution must accommodate the diverse culture of the people, so as to avoid conflicts between cultural and constitutional values and bring about a constitutional national culture. I know that the African culture abhors same sex marriage but in a democratic set up and a modern state, the constitution is supreme and any reference must be traced first constitutionally before culturally. Nonetheless, I think that the gay population if they really want to be part of a cultural society and as well a constitutional state, should seek a compromise in reconciling cultural and constitutional extremes, well assisted by social professionals like social workers, psychologists, clergies and among others, to aid their informed choices. In this regard, the arms of government, especially the legislature would be key.
Finally, the gay population deserves enormous respect and if it should be jettisoned from our society, I believe we should first respect them in their choices and seek for measures that would be curative for the limited ones we have now and preventive for the legion we might have tomorrow. We all have works to do to keep our national morality and our cultural pride.