No way Prof, a strong stand for morality in society is not stupid

Perhaps it is foolhardy to attempt to respond to Prof Makau Mutua (pictured), the self-appointed lecturer on matters on the other side of public morality and everything queer. Armed with the gift of the gab, the good prof has often taken space and time to advocate the repugnant or defend the indefensible – often with a high sense of authority and confident finality.

A fortnight ago, in his article in praise of homosexuals and homosexuality, the good prof – having mounted the high pedestal of progressive enlightenment – went ahead to label everybody else who does not share his views as “stupid” and “fools”.

According to Makau, “you have to be inhumane and an idiot,” not to accept homosexuality as natural and normal. In his view it is because “we often act like damned fools,” and believe many things “without thinking or subjecting them to the rigour of the intellect.” Waah! Unfortunately, by using this kind of language, Makau not only undermines his professorship, but seriously negates the concept of freedom of thought that he so strongly attempted to advocate.

With all due respect to him, his arguments, though lofty, were neither deep nor pithy. For example, in his attempt to defend homosexuality, Makau used some three words liberally but without discernible consideration for their contextual meaning and application. The words are: Natural, Normal, and Phobia. When used in the context of homosexuality, these words require etymological analysis. In plain language, the word “natural” literally means – existing in or derived from nature. Thus it can be said that, for human beings, talking is natural. Therefore, when a person is able to speak, it is no surprise – it is natural. However, if a person is not able to speak, we cannot say it is natural – even if they were born that way. We accept it as a form of disability.

Such a plain meaning of the word “natural” is readily understood by the most unschooled Wanjiku but was equally supported by great philosophers such as Aristotle. Of course, I am acutely aware of the convoluted attempts by contemporary scientists and philosophers to replace such classical, teleological, and normative meaning with a modern mechanistic and non-normative use of the term. It is such expanded definitions that have been cleverly used to not only bring homosexuality into the realm of the natural, but to also fight for its propagation and acceptance.

Secondly, the word “normal” is simply defined as: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Thus, as journalists say, when a dog bites a man, it is not news – it is normal. But when a man bites a dog, it is news – it is not normal.

Likewise, two people (a man and a woman) kissing on the streets of New York is normal – few will even stop to look. But with the same on the streets of Machakos, many will gaze or look away, most likely appalled. It is contextually abnormal. However, two men or two women kissing, whether on the streets of New York or in the allays of Nairobi, the reaction will be almost similar – discomfort, if not disgust. Because, though the new moralists may want to push it, it is simply not normal!

Thirdly, Phobia derives its meaning from the ancient Greek word “phobos” – which simply means fear. It is defined as an anxiety disorder characterised by extreme or irrational fear. Thus, there are some very good people but who have serious phobia for darkness or for heights. We cannot call these people fools, idiots, or stupid. It has nothing to do with their intellectual capacity. Interestingly however, the term homophobia was introduced by psychologist George Weinberg only in the 1960s, acquiring a totally different meaning – such as “prejudice against” or “hatred for” homosexuals. What we find therefore, is that these three words – natural, normal, and phobia – have become the three stones for the intellectual pot normalising homosexuality. This is how in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association made the decision to declassify homosexuality as a diagnosable mental disorder – which it had been for millennia before. They then went ahead to call upon “all international health organisations, psychiatric organisations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries to urge the repeal in their own countries of legislation that penalises homosexual acts by consenting adults in private.”

Thus, with a stroke of pen, APA conspired to change the natural and normal order of human intercourse. This is what has attracted the ire of many – not fear or hatred.

In any case, it is absolutely odd that a people’s sexuality should become a global precondition for grants and aid to nations. It reeks of a convoluted agenda that must be resisted, whether we be called fools, idiots, or stupid.

-doginde@gmail.com