UA-55300619-1

Why debate homosexuality, Constitution has answered this already, Tembo

Filed under: Latest News,Special Comments |
558 Views

By Sean Tembo – PeP President

1. Before we get going on this controversial subject, l just want to put it on record that l do not hold any prejudice against gay people. I just think they have a disease which, like all diseases, our society must help them to get cured instead of promoting. There have been all sort of arguments made in support of gays, or to use a more politically correct term; LGBTQ+, which l believe stands for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, queer etcetera. But for purposes of this discussion, l will use the term LGBTQ+ interchangeably with the terms homosexuality and gayism, even though by strict definition they do not exactly mean the same thing. Allow me to try and address each of these arguments one by one. 

2. Firstly it is important to understand how and why homosexuality has come into prominence over the past few decades. It is being promoted by western countries because they see it as an effective population control measure for the world. You see, whereas the biggest nightmare for you and l in this third world country called Zambia, is that we may wake up tomorrow and have no food to feed our family, the biggest nightmare for most individuals in western countries is that they may wake up tomorrow and find that the world population is bigger than the resources that are available to support life. And that such a situation will bring about mayhem and conflict among the people. With this belief in mind, western countries will do whatever is necessary to try and arrest the growth of the world population. Promoting LGBTQ+ rights is one of the tools that they have in their assenal. What better way to reduce population growth than for men to marry fellow men and women to marry fellow women? Because when a man marries a fellow man, they cannot produce children. Just like when a woman marries a fellow woman. 

3. Whereas western countries might be suffering from over-population, here in Zambia we are suffering from under-population. For our landmass, our population of about 18 million people is too small for us to achieve the necessary economies of scale to develop our nation. What we need is to double and possibly triple our population in the shortest possible time. So from an economic point of view, it does not serve our nation’s interests to embrace LGBTQ+ rights. At least not for now. 

4. From a biblical point of view, the bible is very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, any marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman is unbiblical. The Constitution of the Republic of Zambia is very clear that we are a Christian nation. Therefore we should not even be having this debate of whether or not to protect and embrace LGBTQ+ rights. 

5. From a legal point of view, the penal code is very clear that anyone who engages in carnal knowledge against the order of nature commits a criminal offense. Those are the laws of the land. Unless and until they are changed, they need to be enforced with vigor by our law enforcement agencies. That is what the rule of law is all about; enforcing all laws with equal vigor until and unless they are changed. The moment the authorities start cherry-picking which laws to enforce and which ones not to, then they can no longer claim to govern by the rule of law. 

6. But it is neither the economic, biblical nor legal arguments about LGBTQ+ rights that is the most compelling, but rather the moral argument that some people are born like that, and that it is not right to discriminate against them. That some people are born with an unusual sexual orientation as lesbians or gays or bisexuals or transgender or queer etcetera. And that as humanity, we need to embrace other humans with a birth defect instead of ostracizing them. That these minority rights must be protected and that our laws must be changed in order to accommodate these minority rights so that homosexuals can be able to conduct their business without fear of being arrested and imprisoned. That our marriage laws should be changed to accommodate men who wish to marry fellow men, or women who wish to marry fellow women. 

7. My considered view is that asking our society to bend its rules in order to accommodate people who are born with a defective sexual orientation is a slippery slope. If we say that we adjust our laws so as to accommodate those who are born as LGBTQs because it is not their fault that they were born with a defective sexual orientation, then what about those who claim to have been born with a sexual orientation of only being attracted to have sex with children? Are we still going to call them pedophiles and lock them up or are we going to change our laws in order to protect their minority rights so that they can marry our children, as they wish? What about those who claim to have been born with a sexual orientation of only being attracted to animals? Are we still going to say that they are practicing bestiality and lock them up or are we going to protect their minority rights by changing our laws so as to allow them to be married to their cats, dogs, chickens, goats etcetera? And if a woman marries her dog and she conceives, what is she going to give birth to? 

8. Let us also not forget that there are certain habitual thieves who claim to have been born like that. That they can’t resist stealing. Are we still going to refer to these people as thieves and lock them up or are we going to ask society to change the rules so that we can also protect these minority rights? Where exactly do we draw the line on this slippery slope? 

9. As a society, if some of us are born with a defective sexual orientation such as LGBTQ, pedophilia, bestiality etcetera, isn’t it our duty to help such people to rectify their birth defects rather than embracing and promoting these defects? Why are western countries practicing double standards by promoting some defective sexual orientations such as LGBTQ while frowning upon other defective sexual orientations such as pedophilia? If they are going to promote minority sexual rights, shouldn’t they promote pedophilia with the same vigor and energy with which they promote LGBTQ ?  Why do they allocate disparaging terms like homophobic to people who are averse to minority sexual rights such LGBTQs and yet they allocate no such disparaging terms to people who are averse to other minority sexual rights such as pedophilia and bestiality? In short, why the double standards?  Additionally, by allowing LGBTQs to adopt and raise children, are you not depriving that child of the right to a normal sexual orientation? Are you not imposing a defective sexual orientation on a child, even before the child develops the capacity to chose for themselves? 

10. Indeed, it is evident that the moral argument that LGBTQs are born with their defective sexual orientation and that therefore their minority rights should be protected, is defective. To the contrary, society must assist those with a defective sexual orientation whether it be LGBTQ, pedophilia or bestiality, to rectify it and not promote it. And for as long as our laws criminalize homosexuality, all those practicing it must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Biblically, for as long as marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, same sex marriages should never be tolerated in Zambia. As a population control tool, the promotion of LGBTQ rights might be effective in western countries, but we do not need to control our population here in Zambia. One of the reasons why western countries are more developed than Zambia is because they are highly populated and are able to easily achieve economies of scale, whereas we are too sparsely populated to achieve the necessary economies of scale needed to develop our economy. You see, the way God designed the world is that each part has its own problems. The west has a problem of over-population and we don’t. We have a problem of poverty and the west doesn’t. So let the west deal with its own problems and we shall deal with ours. The west’s solutions to their problems cannot be the solutions to our problems. Let the west promote LGBTQ rights for their countries if it suits them. But let them not impose LGBTQ rights on us because it definitely does not suit us; biblically, legally, morally and economically. 

///END 

SET 20.09.2022

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.