Say It

4 Comments

1. Sean Beaton says:

   October 7, 2008 at 3:49 am

   Hello…

   Just felt the need to comment on your article in ArtMatters.Info on homosexuality (http://artmatters.info/?articleid=117), and your description of how one “becomes” homosexual.

   Despite it’s attempts at appearing academic and impartial, this article clearly has a negative slant against homosexuality, and uses a lot of uncredited ‘facts’, claiming them to be written by ‘experts’. Only a homosexual can be an ‘expert’ on what a homosexual is. And I am one. And being one, I can assure you first hand that homosexuality is not a choice. As a child, I didn’t know what homosexuality was by definition, but I knew innately that it described my natural attractions, and from a very young age I acted on it in subtle ways until adolescence when I more fully embraced the reality of it. It was not spurred on or developed by any ‘deviant’ influences, or any abusive, neglectful, absent, or overprotective parental figures. People don’t ‘become’ homosexual – they become ‘aware’ of the fact that they are homosexual.

   Having said that, I would like to challenge your ‘majority rules’ definition of homosexuality being merely a deviant from the norm of a heterosexual union. That is like saying that being Black is deviant being Asian, just because there is a larger population of Asian people in the world. Homosexuality is ‘different’ from being heterosexual – it is not a deviation from any norm. It is not lesser or greater than heterosexuality in any way – in fact, with the world being on the cusp of overpopulation, it most certainly should not be frowned upon.

   It’s unclear to me how a society that doesn’t allow homosexuals to even be together can look down on homosexuality based on the fact that there is a “lack of commitment among couples”. There is a contradiction here. How can there be commitment when it isn’t permitted? This same society is also opposed to homosexual sex based on the fact that it spreads disease, but it’s not homosexuality that spreads disease – it’s people who are irresponsible and promiscuous that spread disease – and I’m afraid heterosexuals can also be just as irresponsible and promiscuous. The article also dramatically compares homosexuality to theft, molestation, and bestiality – but in all of these examples, something or someone innocent is being harmed, and that’s what makes those acts wrong. When shared between consenting adults, homosexual unions cause no harm to anyone. It’s hatred and intolerance that cause harm in society.

   The article uses the argument that people’s actions must subscribe to social norms, and that homosexuals requesting equal rights are some sort of special interest group, but this only seems to include the ‘norms’ of your own local community/country….how about the attitude towards homosexuality globally? By marginalizing homosexuals to suit your own beliefs, are you not exercising the same ‘special interest’ rights that you claim the homosexual community to be requesting, as the rest of the world becomes more and more educated and accepting of homosexuality?

   I was especially disgusted by the final paragraph of the article – a quote from some ‘expert’ saying how practicing homosexuals should be hung immediately to set an example for the rest of society. It’s unfortunate that your readers have to continually endure such a clearly biased and uninformed stance on homosexuality. You use Ken Ouko as an expert source in your article, and he claims homosexuality “negates the designation of particular organs in the male and the female for ‘coital congruence’”. Although there is clear congruence between men and women’s sexual organs, homosexuality certainly doesn’t ‘negate’ that. Regardless, there are also congruencies between the sexual organs in homosexual unions as well. Men have prostates, which seem to be conveniently placed for the purpose of ‘congruent’ anal stimulation and pleasure, and woman also seem to do just fine without men in the equation.

   The article also falsely suggests that “homosexuals attribute their orientation to an increasingly assertive female population that has little time for men but career and who relentlessly pursue feminist ideals of independence”. Although the article claims this to be the homosexual communities stance, the source is clearly not homosexual, but rather an uninformed observer giving their own interpretation. It also sounds like someone who takes issue with the empowerment of women, which once again would certainly not be a lesbian. Ouko says that the behaviour of these ‘assertive females’ may actually be the cause of homosexuality. The notion that women, or men for that matter, would ‘become’ homosexual merely based on an increasing pursuit of ‘feminist ideals’ is ridiculous, and it should immediately discredit the purported ‘expert’ who would use this as an argument. These women are not homosexual ‘because’ they’ve empowered themselves, rather, they are more easily able to empower themselves because they are not subjected to the oppression of a traditionally male dominated relationship. Empowerment does not turn women into lesbians, although it may allow someone who is already a lesbian to embrace their inner truth.

   It’s not even clear what is meant by Ouko’s statement about how “homosexuality is a preserve of the well to do who use it to dehumanise and humiliate the poor, perpetuating the gap between the rich and the poor.” If it’s referring to some sort of sexual abuse, that would be an issue of abuse, and not homosexuality.

   When referring to dated legislation on the subject of homosexuality, your article also regurgitates quotes like, “just as there is no need to rewrite the Bible or the Koran, there is no need to adjust the Declaration”. This would appear to raise the creators of this Declaration to the status of Gods, which should seem rather blasphemous to those who believe in God. Humans are fallible, and so were the writers of the Declaration. The world is not flat anymore. Our knowledge base evolves over time, and law books should reflect and adapt to such maturation.

   Thank you for reading this, and I hope you appreciate a first-hand perspective on homosexuality from an ‘expert’.
2. Lydia says:

   October 15, 2008 at 1:02 am

   We are interested in listing our juried video show in the Classifieds on your site. Please email me with information about what we need to do. Thank you.
3. Stephen Chigorimbo says:

   October 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm

   My brother,

   The issue of SITHENGI is of serious concern to everyone who was touched by
   the event. As a founder board member it is particularly thorny and more so
   as one of the two FEPACI regional secretaries.

   I am glad you wrote so clearly about your views and we appreciate these.
   Efforts are under way as we speak to drum up support for the existing board
   to relaunch SITHENGI.

   Somehow somewhere someone lost the plot, they decided to rewrite the script.
   We have to assist in returning to the script. SITHENGI is a continental
   initiative entrusted to the South Africans to facilitate on behalf of the
   whole continent in the same way the Secretariat of FEPACI has been entrusted
   to South Africa. This is the same way that SAFF – The third African Film
   Festival was entrusted to Zimbabwe. Both organisations need to be revived
   and serve their purpose.

   The challenge is in identifying and retaining committed individuals whose
   personal agendae is not allowed to overtake the original plot to serve the
   organisation with pride of being African. Each time we let people who
   apolgise for being African in identity or think to be African is synonymous
   with second class we get it wrong.
4. Vincho says:

   November 3, 2008 at 5:05 am

   Love the new look of art matters. keep us posted.