Comment Setting limits on the gay debateThe fuss about recent election of "openly" gay bishops in the Anglican (American Episcopalian) church has muddied a lot of waters and brought to our notice extreme differences of culture and attitude. Almost like two bombs timed to go off right after one another across the Atlantic, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay priest, withdrew from his appointment as Bishop of Reading, England, in July whilst earlier this month, Canon Gene Robinson, who has lived with a male partner for 13 years, was confirmed as the next bishop of New Hampshire by members of the Episcopalian House of Bishops in the United States, though not without considerable opposition both from within and without. Here in Kenya, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi led the protests against the American decision, citing the usual claims of homosexuality being "against Biblical teaching, a sin and damaging the Body of Christ". Furthermore, he warned, it would lead people astray. His views are shared by plenty of clergymen in America, and won applause at the convention of the American Anglican Council where he aired them. Differences in both style and substance underline these reactions: various African leaders have at times uttered their disgust at the very idea, ranging from Presidents Moi, Jomo Kenyatta, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda who, like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, wants to "lock them up and charge them". Of course they are only thinking about men; like Queen Victoria, they wouldn�t even be able to imagine any kind of sexual encounter between females. But diverging attitudes to sex and sexuality have long been part of traditions on the continent, and the church is merely echoing society�s most conservative views. Sex, in general, is seen to be something very private, not to be talked about or indulged in openly. Thus even in Nairobi, one of Africa�s most westernised cities, it is unusual to see couples "necking" or even holding hands in public. Funnily enough, men are more likely to hold hands with each other because the threat of sodomy is such a recent thing and very far from their minds. It is seen to be yet another immorality imported from the West. But all over Europe, especially in the current scorching heat, couples draw a fine line between private and public, and give way to the urge to express affection for one another wherever they might be. It tends to make you wish you were invisible. Modesty and shyness about the body reveal themselves in other ways, too: Miss Tourism Kenya complained in an interview that she felt very uncomfortable about shedding her clothes for the routine beach-wear parade because she wasn�t used to it, but she had to toe the line just like the others. In the changing rooms of gyms, people cover themselves discreetly with towels to and from the shower. Naturally, these reservations have made it more difficult to tackle the issues around HIV/Aids, and in the views of some, have greatly contributed to the ease with which the disease has spread. Yet when it comes to dance, there are other dress and behaviour codes, and erotic movement of the hips and bottom are a source of eternal pleasure and delight for participants and spectators, contrasting as they do with the comparative "prudishness" of private conduct. If we don�t respect these things, the world will become even more homogenous and dull than it already is. However, when it comes to the question of human rights, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is totally unacceptable. The State has no right to interfere in what goes on in any bedroom between consenting adults. Its duty is to guard its citizens� rights and to ensure that they are never abused, especially in the case of the young, the disabled and the vulnerable. Presidents have no jurisdiction over such matters, and should keep their personal opinions to themselves. In all the furore, few people outside the US have noticed that President Bush has begun his own war against gays, vowing to set up legislation to outlaw same-sex unions, thereby going against trends in his own state of Texas where the Supreme Court a short while ago overturned a law banning sodomy. The movement towards broad acceptance of homosexuality is now virtually unstoppable in Western countries. In the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries, gay people have won the right to declare love for another person regardless of gender, thus making them equal in the eyes of the law to their heterosexual counterparts. Surely, is this the spirit of the UN Charter of Human Rights established more than 50 years ago? Marked cultural difference also characterizes the reactions of British and American Anglicans: although it is common knowledge that the church has numbers of gay men disproportionate to the population at large, it prefers that they shut up about it. (Not, however, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who is deeply distraught about the divisions that have erupted.) Thus Jeffrey John bowed to public pressure and withdrew, whereas Gene Robinson has flouted his sexuality, challenging the church to move ahead with the times. The issue of ordaining female priests similarly divided the laity, but eventually it was accepted in 1976, and the fuss has died down. As long as confusion reigns over the nature of human sexuality, such conflicts are bound to continue. It isn�t simple, and it isn�t a matter of choice and never has been. It�s just that we live in more permissive times. Schools need to take it on board because many young people are worried: it is the first question they want discussed, if they�re given half a chance. It is particularly problematic in single-sex boarding schools where volatile feelings can�t find proper _expression_. "I�m frightened I might be gay," they say. "And what if you are?" The question isn�t to be or not to be gay, but to allow it to show - to "come out" - or to keep it hidden. To be able to be yourself or to live a lie. Your sexuality is so much a part of who you are and how you relate to other people, that to try and squash it requires huge effort - something unnecessary for the heterosexual majority who rarely give the matter a second thought. But Gene Robinson isn�t alone in having realised as a mature adult after marriage to a woman and bringing up a family that his preferences lay elsewhere. Nor is he alone in having a long-term stable relationship with another person who happens to be male. Comments\Views about this article |
|
Front Page | News | Business | Comment | Letters | Sports | Cutting Edge | Feedback |
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?�Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger
