Nothing right about ‘gay rights’

“President Mugabe, who has called gays “worse than dogs and pigs”, latched on to the issue to “distract attention from economic and political crises and shore up political support.” Truth of the matter is homosexuality has always been a big no in the African culture.
It is not that President Mugabe made anti-gay sentiments popular, but that he spoke out against cultural imperialism by Western countries. It is not just African culture that rejects gays, but many other cultures and religions. Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognised that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behaviour.
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behaviour. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man.
Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality than they do about bestiality — that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behaviour natural for them. But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice.
For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behaviour) without consciously choosing them.
Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that 10 percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is common and thus acceptable behaviour. But not all common behaviours are acceptable, and even if 10 percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing.
Most importantly, how have these activists recorded that 10 percent of the population is indeed homosexual? I find that figures from many of these so-called activists are usually doctored in order to support their assertions. When asked to clarify, they always claim that they want to protect their sources, making it even more difficult for any objective person to verify whether or not 10 percent of the population is indeed made up of gays.
Those opposed to homosexual behaviour are often charged with “homophobia” — that they hold the position they do because they are “afraid” of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.
Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behaviour. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control. Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behaviour are in no way “afraid” of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying “homophobe!” falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.
At the official opening of the new African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on African leaders to respect gay rights. Ban Ki-moon told delegates that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity “prompted governments to treat people as second class citizens or even criminals”.
In high handedness typical of Western politicians who seek to preach to Africa and not discuss and debate, Ban Ki-moon falsely pointed out that African governments would face the threat similar to that of the “Arab Spring” should they not heed calls from their citizens to honour gay rights. It is no surprise that Ban would “lecture” African leaders on gay rights, with the growing Chinese influence on the continent, America and Britain will use every trick in the book to divert attention from real issues and focus on trivial issues which they dare not raise anywhere else on the globe.
Never would Ban tell Arab leaders that they should recognise gay rights, which would be a one way ticket to a fatwa. It is the African curse of resources that leads Ban to stoop and lobby for rights which are likely to erode the moral and cultural values of Africa. 
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on December 6 2010 gave a Human Rights Day Speech in Geneva which can be called the launch pad for the new blitz for the gay rights campaign. In fact, I would have titled it “the gays are taking over” speech. In essence, all Mrs Clinton did was give those who practise homosexuality a new avenue to proliferate their moral decadence by claiming that gay rights are human rights. Personally I think the whole “Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do” was directed at President Mugabe “Shumba yaPeter Tatchell”. 
Funny thing about America, the bulk of the Americans themselves are against gay rights. There are record levels of crimes against those who practise homosexuality in many states within America. The American constitution does not recognise gay rights. And yet here their Secretary of State stands trying to force feed the nations of the world a practice that even her own constituency does not accept or tolerate.
It is only South Africa in Africa that has laws legalising homosexuality, now is not the time for me to list and analyse just how bad life for the ordinary black man and woman is across the Limpopo, however, all I can say is, the South Africans need more done to improve their lives than to be heralded for giving same-sex marriages “respectability”.
Africa is in need of infrastructure development, many children have no access to clean water, and the girl child is still lagging behind in terms of educational and career opportunities in comparison to her male counterpart. America and Britain are always singing how many in Africa live on less than a dollar a day and how they want to improve this.
I am not sure just how they are going to achieve this if they do carry out their threat to deny African states, which do not legalise homosexuality, aid and loans. What I fail to comprehend is just how giving two men the right to legally have sex will improve the welfare of the many people across the continent.
Now that Malawian President Joyce Banda has told the nation she intends to repeal the country’s ban on homosexuality which had been criticised by international donors. In the past Western leaders have warned they will cut aid to countries that fail to recognise gay rights, but anti-homosexual sentiment is still prevalent across much of the continent.
In her speech, Ms Banda said her government wanted to normalise relations with “our traditional development partners who were uncomfortable with our bad laws”. Funny thing though, Mrs Banda is member of the now famous TB Joshua SCOAN where people are “delivered” from all kind of evils including the homosexuality demons.
Our very own Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has not been left out in this outrageous nonsense, his interview a while ago advocating for the inclusion of gay rights in the new constitution was met with outrage from Zimbabweans across the political divide. Of course, Tsvangirai dances to the tune of whoever is paying his air ticket at any given time and at that time supporting gay rights in a BBC studio after the announcement by British PM that he would be withholding aid and loans to any African government which does not recognise gay rights, came as no surprise. Donor funding is the fuel that runs the MDC leader’s engine. After Cecil John Rhodes’ desecration of our religion by sitting on our spiritual headquarters and being buried at a place of worship, are we as Zimbabweans going to go further and embrace his homosexuality desecrating again the land?