The sticky homosexuality and prostitution debate refuses to go away. But it is healthy. It helps us reconsider who we really are? It forces us to confront our value system, our moral campus. It reminds us that society is not in a state of constant flux as some have argued. Our values are deeply rooted in our society having been developed over generations and sometimes centuries. They are not easily blown away by the hurricanes of modernity and the mood of the time. They are built on a solid rock of faith and culture. Yes these faith beliefs and cultural positions may not represent a homogeneous position of the entire group, since that can never be attained, but they do represent a world view of the many. Whether such a world view is right, is a different philosophical argument of truth and morality which though enjoyable to delight in, may not find full expression in a column of this length.
I have written on the contentious homosexuality and prostitution with considerable force before, but in such arguments I have stayed clear of the moral view. I have avoided the question of wrong or right not because the approach is not interesting but because it needs a certain degree of philosophical argument which may be hard to develop in such short space. Now it is the moral argument which I wish to submit for it is usually the easier one to dismiss by those who favour prostitution and homosexuality, while it is actually the most compelling. The moral argument is usually assaulted through simplistic statements: “Who are you to judge?” Sometimes it appears draped in religious text: “Let the one without sin be the first one to cast a stone”. However, the most common rejection of the moral argument is this: why should you impose your own (religious) beliefs on other people? I and my partner are atheists, why should we care about your views? What is wrong for you may be right for another person. Why should you think that because you believe something then it is right? You guys should be tolerant to people of other sexual preferences. We shall call this the moral relativity argument because the underlying view is that morality is relative and a matter of personal opinion. All these arguments appear formidable against the moral argument, but they are in effect Eiffel towers of clay which are easily washed away by good reason.
We start here: What is the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. The answer seems to be that one did good and the other did evil. How do we know? How do we know if Mugabe’s rule is evil or not? Well, we seem to have through a rather extended process of socialization developed a communal understanding of what is socially acceptable or morally reprehensible. A community over time
develops a moral campus which is generally influenced by religious views and cultural norms.
Morality therefore moves beyond being a personal issue of choice but rather a communal view which helps the society navigate matters of right and wrong. This communal view influences the formulation of laws so that those who depart from this moral view may be sanctioned. Because society views certain acts as morally offensive, it enacts laws which sanction and or punish such acts so that they would not flourish. Nothing has demonstrated this matter more than the rape sentences. A number of years ago when rape cases were escalating in Botswana, women’s groups lobbied legislators to revise the minimum sentence of rape. They argued in part that the sentences meted out at the time did not reflect the seriousness of the crime. They were successful and the sentence was revised to reflect the moral outrage that rape attracted. Moral views are therefore repeatedly subjected to challenge and questioning and revision. What we must however not do is reduce moral view points to a personal opinion. If we do, then Mugabe would react to his personal criticism as a matter of personal opinion. If someone stole your television set and you complained, the answer can never be that stealing is only a matter of opinion. No, it is intrinsically morally reprehensible since it fractures that which the community considers evil and unacceptable.
Recently Pono Moatlhodi was quoted as saying he wanted homosexuals killed. He denied ever saying such a thing. He argued that he is an UCCSA man and if not there, he may be found worshipping at Spiritual Healing Church. But the question must be posed: Is it wrong to kill homosexuals? How do we know it is wrong? Is it even wrong to suggest the killing of a homosexual? The question is hard to answer if you subscribe to moral relativity. The answer cannot be answered by the argument that what is right to you may be wrong to me. A perfect answer is to be found in the moral view. Killing a homosexual, as it happened to a Mr David Kato, is morally reprehensible since we as a society perceive the killing of another person unacceptable. Views on these issues are not based on personal viewpoints and arguments like “what’s right for you may be wrong for me” or “it depends on who is judging”. We cannot leave them to such for if we did, we are doomed, because nothing is certain; nothing is right; nothing is wrong, we are victims of a philosophically nonsensical world, with no solid moral foundation. Homosexuality matters can also not be left to choice. I know many who have made a choice of a life of debauchery; devoting their entire life to drunkenness and crime. “But surely a homosexual relationship is between two consenting adults” ÔÇô my answer is ÔÇô and so is adultery, but that surely doesn’t make it right.
Some of my friends have argued quite persuasively that homosexuality doesn’t bring harm to anybody like Mugabe who has destroyed many lives and killed the Matebele. These are two loving people doing their thing privately. If we accept this argument we are forced to accept the argument that adultery is OK as long as it remains undiscovered, otherwise it would cause much harm to the family. Certainly there is something wrong with that line of arguing. Homosexuality is unacceptable to us in Botswana because we as the society find it morally reprehensible. Yes these views limit the freedoms of certain groups of people, just as views that sanction adultery infringe on the rights of two loving people from engaging in sex. I also understand that we must show tolerance; but I equally know that we can only tolerate something that is bad. By definition we must define homosexuality as bad for us to tolerate it. This debate will not go away. My suggestion to BONELA and EFB is to settle this matter the people’s way, because after all we are a democracy. Let them use their resources to ask Batswana a number of simple questions: Q1: Would you accept a law that legalises homosexuality in Botswana? [yes/no]. Q2: Would you accept a law that legalises prostitution in Botswnaa? [yes/no].
Finish and Klaar! Something tells me that BONELA would reject this process because they are aware that their view is counter popular opinion. They must prove me wrong and be part of the research.
