homosexuality | The Hexacoto

September 14, 2013

Nigerian grad student uses science to prove gay marriage is wrong

null

Photo from Nigerian news site This Day

A University of Lagos post graduate student, Chibuihem Amalaha, from Imo State has used science to prove that gay marriage is improper among other breakthroughs.

A post-graduate student from the University of Lagos has proved without a doubt that gay marriage is wrong. According to him, “In the area of physics, I used physics with experiments, I used chemistry with experiments, I used biology with experiments and I used mathematics to prove gay marriage wrong.”

I have taken the liberty of summing up his scientific experiments showing that gay marriage is wrong.

A bar magnet has two opposite poles: North and South. If you put two North or two South poles of the magnets together, they will not attract but repel instead. Men and women are opposites, therefore “a man will attract a woman because of the way nature has made a female.” Ergo, gay marriage is wrong.
“if you use your biro and rub it on your hair, after rubbing, try to bring small pieces of paper they will attract because one is charged while the other one is not charged. But if both of them are charged they don’t attract, which means that man cannot attract another man because they are the same, and a woman should not attract a woman because they are the same. ” Ergo, gay marriage is wrong.
In chemistry, there are “acids” and “bases (alkali)” which are opposites. Pouring an acid over a base results in a chemical reaction — you get salt and water. Pouring an acid over an acid or alkali over alkali results in no reaction, just as “a man on top of a man will have no reaction.” Ergo, gay marriage is wrong.
Electrolysis proves that people of the same sex cannot be attracted to each other. Amalaha found out that “negative ions will be attracted to the positive ones while the positive ions will be attracted to the negative ones” and concluded that “a man cannot be attracted to a man as negative ion is not attracted to the negative electrode instead negative ion is attracted to the positive electrode.” Ergo, gay marriage is wrong.
A cock copulates with a hen, a lion copulates with a lioness. Animals of the same gender do not copulate. Sperms fertilise eggs. If “even lower creature understand so much, how come human being made in the higher image of God that is even of higher creature will be thinking of a man having sex with another and woman having sex with another woman?” Ergo, gay marriage is wrong.
Mathematical commutativity and idempotency proves gay marriage wrong. If 2+3=5 and 3+2=5, then A+B and B+A will result in a “change.” If men are “A” and women are “B,” then a man and a woman will result in a reaction and change (commutative). However, if you have 2 “A’s” or 2 “B’s” together, you get the same result: A+A=(2)A, B+B=(2)B, and no change has occurred. Ergo, gay marriage is wrong.

One can only imagine the countless hours he spent, sitting in a lab, trying to get magnets to attract and repel each other, rubbing biros on his head trying to attract paper, and observing chickens fornicate.

Amalaha concludes, “So these are the principles I have used to prove gay marriage wrong in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and by the grace of God I am the only one that has proved this in the whole world.”

Amalaha’s other achievements also include that mathematical number Pi is not 22 over 7, and proving “that watching television in the dark impacts negatively on one’s eyes and by God’s grace, I was the first person to use scientific instruments to prove it in the whole world.”

1 Comment

August 15, 2013

In pursuit of happiness

A gay man is marrying a woman he will never romantically love, or even have sex with.

A friend is moving in with a woman he could never see as a lover.

Initially there was shock and outrage all around from the ones around him,

“Marrying a woman?” they’d say, “Have you lost your mind?”

A (spouse) and two kids, a dog, a kitchenette. The wholesome American dream. He could pull a Madonna and adopt one of the kids from Africa, he tells me.

Apparently he has given up finding love. Apparently he has given up on disappointments and hope.

In the past, we’d call that resignation. Today, he calls it “achieving the life he’s never had.”

“Is this what the whole fight for marriage equality was for, so that you could marry a woman?” I wondered to myself, but never actually telling him that.

Then I realised that in my judgement of his decision, not only did I realise what my own views on marriage are, but that had I told him off, like some of his friends did, I would be imposing my views on his. And who was I to curtail what my friends choose to pursue? If my friends choose ‘happiness’ in whatever forms they see fit, I will be supportive, even if they aren’t the same as mine.

So I only wished him the best in his pursuit of happiness, no matter whether he eventually walks down the aisle with a bride in hand or not.

2 Comments

July 23, 2013

Love without persecution

I was thinking about how recently in the United States, the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 (Prop 8) were both declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. What this means is that same-sex married couples can officially be recognised as ‘spouses’ in the eyes of the law and be eligible for federal marriage benefits, and that people in California can now legally marry.

There is a very distinct separation of between the government and the courts in the United States. This allows the courts to strike down laws set up by governments that apparently do not reflect the will of its people (the Constitution). Unfortunately that is not quite the case in Singapore.

Even though Singapore has a constitution, the Constitution does not seem to be supreme. It is of popular opinion that the government and the courts are one and the same. Even Wikipedia has noted that parliamentary sovereignty is the de facto characterisation of the legal system in the country. As such, the will of the parliament is often the will of the law, it seems.

In Singapore, under its penal code, there is a statute, Section 377, that criminalises sex “against the order of nature.” Its subsection 377A states that any male person who, in public or private, commits against any male person any act of gross indecency shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years. This effectively makes homosexual sex illegal.

Section 377 was repealed on October 2007, but its subsection 377A was retained. On the decision, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that “Singapore is basically a conservative society…The family is the basic building block of this society. And by family in Singapore we mean one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.”

Decriminalising homosexual sex is not going to break up families. Not that we’re even debating on the same stage of same-sex marriage as in the United States, but cracked.com has helpfully outlined how legalising gay marriage affects society (hint: it does not affect you in any way). Decriminalising homosexual sex is not going to cause heterosexual or homosexual couples to suddenly want to commit bestiality, or any of the slippery-slope arguments pitched by proponents of the legislation.

If the government wishes to focus on the family as it claims, why can’t having two mothers or two fathers make a good family? Surely they are just as good as any mother-father pair family, or single-parent family? There are tons of research that show that same-sex parents families do just as well, if not better, than different-sex parents. I would think that having two parents would provide for the children better than a family on just one income. If the government is so concerned about “family units,” then perhaps they should consider making adoption legal for homosexual couples, and allow them tax and national benefits as well.

If the focus is that it is the will of the people not to accept homosexuality because they are conservative, even if the government were to decriminalise homosexual acts of sex, it is not going to stop the homophobia that permeates the country. Repealing 377a is not going to stop the cries of “bapok” and “ah gua” on the streets, just as outlawing racism in Singapore is not going to stop the mutual jeerings of “ah pu neh neh” and “munjen” in the neighbourhood.

But at least we can offer equal protection to everyone, regardless of sexuality, from persecution from the law.

Never mind that the community is conservative, never mind that the majority have yet to accept homosexuals as social equals, but at least decriminalising homosexual acts of sex would be one less guillotine hanging over their heads.

What is the purpose of the government? If the government says it is there to reflect the views of the people it serves, then, well, the seething dissent from the masses these days from unpopular bills such as the move to regulate internet news is the exact opposite of representing its population.

If the government is there to lead by example, why couldn’t the government lead by example on this front, and set a precedent for reducing victimisation of its own people?

There is a disconnect between some laws of the land and its people; just because things are law doesn’t necessarily mean that the mindsets of people will automatically change. The outlawing of secret societies did not magically make people stop subscribing to the ideas that gangs offer protection and fear; it merely drove them underground. It was the eventual modernisation and improvements to policing that left all but a handful still loyal to the idea of organised brotherhood. Singaporeans are slowly accepting homosexuality more are more, regardless of whether the law decrees it or not.

So the courts might as well do the right thing, and the set the go-ahead for love without fear of persecution.