Every home in Ghana is bound to have a homosexual if Human right activists continue to insist on their (homosexuals) rights instead of joining hands with the rest of Ghanaians to condemn the act which is increasingly gaining grounds in the country.

It is indisputable that the Constitution of Ghana is supreme and allows for fundamental human rights which include the right to freedom of association, which allows people or persons to independently choose whoever their sexual partners should be. But is that enough justification, as Ghanaians, to allow acts which are morally absence and destructive to consume into our society and eventually destroy it someday?

Maybe I don’t know, but is it enshrined in any section of the Constitution of Ghana that the youth or young people must show their elders respect? Are they (youth) constitutionally bound to do so? If the answer to this questions is no, then why is it always a grave concern to every Ghanaian anytime we realize that our youth are not showing enough respect to the elderly. Am not pretty sure how accurate this instance is, considering the issue at stake but my point is, there are behaviours and actions, though not backed by the Constitution, that is morally obscene and destructive and must be condemn by all no matter what. No disregard to the constitution though.

Most often, we are tempted to strive and practice strictly and precisely the kind of democracy America and the rest of the west do, without considering the differences in our cultures, traditions, and values, and this could be dangerous. Long before we had the constitution, our forefathers had values, very effective, that took care of their everyday lives without problems. Some of these values still exist even with the coming of the Constitution and attention must be paid to them so that we maintain some level of sanity in our society. But on the hand, the Americans and the rest who we try to copy in terms of Human right issues had no such systems (traditional laws, values, etc) before the coming into force of their constitution. Their constitutions are almost as old as their countries, so they would have no problem in applying it effectively to their benefit more than we can. So in simple language, if human right activists in America fight for the rights of homosexuals, we must be careful of how we go about ours, because our society frown on it and that is the way it should stand. President Barack Obama, in his entire election campaign message in the run up to 2008 US election acknowledged and emphasised on the right of gays and lesbians, a contributing factor in his success. But can any of our presidential aspirants, Mills or Nana Addo factorise the rights of homosexuals in their campaign messages and be successful? Let any of them dare and the results would be so “beautiful” for all to see.

This tells you how Ghanaians abhor the act. So, how can we sit comfortable on radio, TV and defend these awkward people in the name of Human right? No disregard for the constitution though, but such comments, I think, may not help to combat this ungodly act. We often hear of men having sex with animals, when such issues ensue, everybody condemn it wholly and nobody talks about the rights of the culprits, but is that not right of association? Why can’t homosexuality be treated the same way?

Now the most dangerous fraction of this whole issue is, these Human right activists are role models and influential people in society as well. If they come into the media to defend the rights of homosexuals unequivocally, what message are they sending to the homosexuals and innocent young people? The moment you mention Human rights, it promptly remind a person that he can do good or bad provided it does not infringe others’ rights.

So, to me, by spelling out the rights of gays in such unequivocal manner, they are obliquely encouraging them (homosexuals) to do the act instead of preventing the act. I know they may possibly argue that they are only interpreting the Constitution, but I don’t think it is going to help since they (homosexuals) are listening and feeling secured. One annoying aspect of it, they spell out the rights without trying to find solution to the problem.

In rundown, nobody is stopping the Activists from interpreting the Constitution, but where the issue at stake is sensitive like the one on our hands (homosexuality), they must exercise extreme caution in order not to rather project the situation out of hand.

LEWIS NENYEWODE NUMEKEVOR.(mylewisonline@yahoo.com)