Sexuality should be a private affair

Sexuality should be a private affair

Sexuality is a private affair, and no matter how many arguments may be put forward as to the definition of the issue of one’s sexual inclination, orientation, or, tendency it does not serve the general public any benefit in terms of advancing the basic concerns society needs to advance.
Discussing what one does in their private space on a public platform merely serves as a nuisance to some: there are more pressing issues to discuss such as rampant disease, unemployment, crime, poverty eradication, social development and such related issues.

Parading how you get it on is plain irritation for (I repeat) there are more pressing issues at hand to discuss, and the serious problems they pose to the well-being and harmonious running of the entire society are of equal importance.

How the issues raised by LGBTI communities found their way into the public sphere vexes my understanding, for my simple take is that they are private affairs limited in their breadth to the affected individuals.

It simply is no one’s business whether I am lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or straight.
It serves no one except myself what gender I choose to follow, and going public about defining homosexuality or heterosexuality is being noisome about what I should best keep to myself.
Gender classification is as old as humanity, in fact, it predates humanity for except those few and scattered cases of androgyny, the world is either male or female, the rest that is now in fashion is simply a severe case of sexual psychological confusion whose base can be traced to specific sources such as abuse, orientation, or choice as is the case in most instances where individuals display sexual qualities different from what the public presumes.

The massive tantrums thrown by gay rights groups are to me just attention-seeking displays that in most cases endanger the harmony of society if not seen for what they really are. Associating it with anti-Semitism is just plain erroneous, for in this case the basis is one: racism.
What one does in their bedrooms should not be allowed to confuse the poor children whose conception of the world is limited growing in a manner that is beneficial to the society as a whole.
That one is a man engaging in sexual intercourse with other men, or, that one is a woman that dates other women is in frank terms not beneficial to anyone else but the parties concerned, not the entire society.

It should not be imposed on disinterested parties in the form of the carnivals and street parades, for doing so merely alienates the one who wants their voice to be heard.
Social realities run concomitantly with social rights and the presentation of such realities should be done with regard to their relationship to the rights of others, thus the reason why certain issues are addressed on platforms that are private due to their nature which may unwittingly infringe on the rights of the majority of the citizenry in a state.
Basing one’s argument, for example, on such a right as freedom of expression without due consideration to the rights of the minors in society is clearly an infringement on the constitution of the state.

Exposure and subjection to behaviour that may socially, emotionally, physically or psychologically harm the child is part of the Children’s Act of Lesotho.
The basic makeup of the ideal environment in which a child must grow up includes a father and a mother, and the question is: how does the child deal with the new and increasing number of sexualities sex rights groups coin with every passing season?

How do they get to identify adequately as individuals when presented with this kaleidoscope of sexual identities?
There should be calls for rights, but they should be done in a manner that is appropriate because for now, the noise is too loud on the part of the rights groups that impose their rights on ‘normal’ people who are innocently not interested in these bedroom politics.

Invasive tendencies of rights groups are not often subtle, from the feminist rights groups of the 50’s and 60’s to the present day, the general unconcerned public is often subjected to rhetoric that has no consideration whatsoever for the rights of others.
Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, personal beliefs, and other beliefs that are not necessarily less important than the rights of an individual or group of individuals that believe in a given issue.

For governments to agree with the views of groups just on the basis that individuals in such groups seem human may at the end of the day lead to the destruction of entire societies by the cabalistic tendencies of individuals whose goal is to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

I have never been one to believe in noise as a means to getting people to listen to and understand my opinion or to support my point of view. The past 20 years have seen the southern part of Africa and the world deal with groups of people that impose their views on others, stigmatising those that do not agree with the given point of view.

I do not agree with my children being exposed to the sexual behaviours of adults that do not agree with whatever sex nature panned out to them.
If they feel they are men in women’s bodies, or women in men’s bodies, it is their private concern; what I am is my private concern and I don’t have to go around telling everyone that I am a hetero-metro-sexual male that believes that male and female were designed for the specific purpose of procreation.

Minding one’s business means that there is no thin line one has to tread, but it is hard to mind one’s business when there is a woodpecker at one’s door, when there is a siren in the kitchen, and when there is a strange human standing in one’s yard.
These strange humans are of the sort that look like they are of a certain sex but in ‘actual’ terms of a different kind, leading to one being utterly confused when it comes to defining what they are in terms of sexual orientation (which too is none of my business but which may help when I have to describe the identity of the individual when the cops come knocking after the commitment of a crime).

We have to be specific in terms of defining the gender of an individual, for under normal circumstances, there is no in-between (there is only the ‘other’ and that ‘other’ has now transformed into more than five different forms from the original two that ‘other’ had) to avoid confusion.
Focusing on the real concerns (health, employment, safety: welfare) of society shall save the day from the marauding armies of individuals that have chosen to get out of their closets to parade their sex in the streets in the name of rights and expression.

If this was done in the halls like the pious do theirs in tents, chapels and cathedrals then I would not be bothered. I am only bothered because the carnivals of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah go past my house and confuse me and my children with their calls to be heard and accepted as ‘normal’.

Being blunt is never wrong, and to be obtuse, there is nothing ‘normal’ about being multi-gender. Face the truth: there is a reason why there is male and female (or androgynous or hermaphrodite) and anything that seeks to define itself otherwise is abnormal.

BY: Tsepiso S Mothibi

Previous ’Mojakhomo: a big own goal
Next The politicisation of the public service

About author

You might also like

Insight 0 Comments

Police officers have a right to freedom of association

IT is indisputable that the provisions of the Lesotho Constitution are binding on the government, authorities and persons. Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the Constitution is the supreme

Insight

Protect the consumer

TsepisoS. Mothibi In the past, it was common for one to see the SABS (South African Bureau of Standards) seal on almost all the products one bought for consumption or

Insight

The invisible economy

Tsepiso S. Mothibi There is a clearly visible gap in the economy of Lesotho and in the economies of other small or low income countries on the African continent. Reliant