I have read with great interest the sudden proliferation of articles geared towards the gay/lesbian lifestyle in Ghana, especially, the recent feature article of Thursday, 6 January 2011 by a Stephen Atta Owusu. All of the previous articles, including the one referenced above, bent favorably towards the gay-lesbian cause, make a spirited defense of so-called gay/lesbian rights while directly or indirectly characterizing those opposed to this lifestyle as homophobic. These articles further create an artificially diverse opinion, to give the impression that a natural groundswell of the gay/lesbian lifestyle in Ghana is immiment, and that the Government and People of Ghana, are collectively culpable for what the articles term human rights abuses under United Nations Conventions.

Part of the reason for this is that the world has changed; a world in which both the majority and the minority sides of any issue have gained increased capabilities in advancing their separate agenda, rightly or wrongly; a world, in which people move and interact faster; goods, services and yes, lifestyles hitherto considered inaccessible or “foreign”, are now virtually (pun intended) immediately within reach. It is also a world in which ulterior motives can be foisted rudely and unconscionably on anyone, a people or a nation-state, utilizing the very advances in global development as foil for that agenda. As a Ghanaian with no fear for change, but an openness for a society that protects it’s most valued traditions and history, I feel it a duty to speak for my country, my Government (any government) and my people. My response to these articles take a variety of approaches, so here we go:



1. SOCIETY AND TECHNOLOGY



In a strictly anthropological sense, technology used to connote the sum of a society’s (or culture’s) practical knowledge, particularly knowledge about its material culture. This sense encompasses a variety of notions on value systems, expressed in practical terms (as in “cultural practices”). Today, as part of succumbing to the wave of change, technology also means the study, development and application of devices, machines and techniques in manufacturing and productive services. While both definitions make sense, the gay/lesbian lifestyle clearly discards the solid foundations of anthropological technology in favor of the more capitalistic, transient and diffuse definition, giving them ample wiggle room for propaganda and bad behaviour. For instance, the application of devices, such as computers and other hand-held mobile devices, afford us more advanced typographical and connectivity capabilities, in the sum of our practical knowledge on document production. It is this capability that those with the penchant for a freak’s lifestyle, have quickly capitalized on, to disseminate offensive articles, videos and fake pictures of uni-sexual carnal activity, in hopes of successfully forcing that lifestyle on society, including Ghana. A detailed examination of many of the articles bears this point out. For instance the articles seem to originate from a variety of blogs. A blog is a frequently updated personal journal, usually available free of charge; it is one more child born out of the upsurge in applications and devices in technology. There are some important blogs out there, which do serious work. However, within the community of serious journalists, “blog” is sometimes used to refer to the proliferation of spurious information vehicles masquerading as objective, factual information, from anyone with an opinion, crazy or otherwise. Further, many of the authors of these blog articles, claiming Ghanaian heritage, simply use Ghanaian-sounding pseudonyms and carry non-existent email addresses.

According to a WHOIS Report for this site accessed by this writer, the recent article critiqued in this response is hosted on a network originating out of Chicago, Illinois in the United States of America (USA), with an IP Address of 216.246.74.34. The technical components of an e-mail include a prefix, an operand (the “at” sign which is the cursive “a” with a circle around it), and a domain name. In simple terms this is a protocol that allows us to send and receive email. Because there is a specific classification for domain name protocols (Top Level, Second Level and Third Level), it is highly unlikely that @email.com functions as a real, active website domain, exclusive to any entity. Exclusivity rules are part of why emails come from and reach specific corporate and personal mail servers. Further investigation of the WHOIS Report reveals email.com is a PARKED, (a reserved website), undeveloped website (screen shot above). The last time I checked, the average price for registering a domain name is a mere $19.99 a year, bringing it to a total of $139.93 for the period between 2011 to 2017 for which the Email.com is registered. This a pittance compared to the money gay/lesbian groups are willing to put up to guarantee their freaky lifestyle.



Alexa, a web traffic and trend tracking site reports that there are 87,304 PARKED sites with a better three-month Alexa traffic rank than Email.com on the server which carries Email.com. Alexa estimates that 27% of the site's visitors are in the US. The site is also said to be popular in Iran, where it is ranked #11,656. The site's visitors view 1.6 unique pages each day on average. Approximately 8% of visits to this site are referred by search engines, and visitors to Email.com spend roughly 57 seconds per visit to the site and 33 seconds per page view. The remaining roughly 92% of visits come from the same IP Address (216.246.74.34), that is, the same person who registered and administers Email.com for his/her gay/lesbian underground activities (screen shot shown above).



Gay/lesbian groups targeting Ghana think that Ghanaians are too backward and under-informed to know the difference between their tech shenanigans on the one hand, and fact and values on the other in a world of diffuse point-and-click technology and abundant information. Their effort is to use technology to inundate and confuse readers and create the false impression that this discussion is a natural groundswell. Ghanaians know it is a gimmick born of an individual or a motley collection of individuals, pretending to number some two hundred thousand activists. It is a gimmick symptomatic of some persons, probably Ghanaians, who left the shores of Ghana years ago. Disappointed in their hopes for greener pastures, and in the process, having acquired some deviant foreign lifestyles, they want to return home, and along with this desire is to bundle their new social vices as well. These articles and so-called conferences are therefore an effort to pave the way for a repatriation of their bestial behaviour.



FALSE STATISTICS



Another tactic employed by this gay/lesbian group is the fraudulent use of meaningless numbers masquerading as factual statistical data. Some buffoons seem to think that the mere appearance of numbers within a group of words must be an indication of intelligent discourse and sophistication. They remind me of people who have a bad habit of making false quotations and swearing in the Good Lord’s name, when in fact, they know absolutely nothing of the matter at hand. The specific case in point is the number Two Hundred Thousand (200,000). This number has appeared in almost all of the pro-gay/lesbian articles reviewed spanning more than five years to date. Given the obvious goal of creating the impression that the gay/lesbian lifestyle in Ghana is real and growing, one would like to think that the proponents of this bestial lifestyle would update this number to reflect a trend. No! They have not, but continued to constantly reference this number as a factual total population of gays/lesbians in Ghana. Aba! In five whole years they have not had even one additional member to at least grow the number to 200,001? Give us a break!!! Still, the trickery and buffoonery does not stop here. Those deeply involved with statistical matters and study are familiar with circular referencing. In simple terms, it is a technique in statistics in which a calculation builds upon itself; for instance (thanks to statistical applications, including Excel). In ordinary English usage, it connotes a sentence that reveals no new knowledge; in logic, it describes an argument that does not move logically to a satisfactory conclusion because it assumes as true something that needs to be proven or demonstrated.

The reason I painstakingly explain this is that the origins of the 200,000 is from the very same people who claim this is an objective estimate of the gay/lesbian population in Ghana. Then, they turn right around reference it as though it were coming from some other authentic source. This trick is discernible even in the quoted statistics, ostensibly presented to imply a source from the Ghana Statistical Service’s household survey, in which the aggregate of percentages closely mirror the absolute value of 200,000. In another pro-gay/lesbian article, sourced to GHP without any indications of who the author is, breaks down a supposed Ghana household survey of 100,000 people in Ghana (presumably 10,000 from each Region since Ghana has 10 regions) to imply that approximately 1 percent of Ghanaians describe themselves as gay/lesbian; the margin of error according this nonsensical report is 5 percent, implying a statistical confidence level of 95 percent, a generally acceptable statistical threshold for valid research. For all its bold attempts at statistical manipulation the article fails to realize that for a total population of over 23 Million Ghanaians (as provided by world bank and Government of Ghana data), 100,000 will not be a statistically valid sample upon which to draw a conclusion about an entire population of over 23 million souls, even if 1 percent of this number is a little over 200,000. In the same article, the author references some so-called official mouthpiece of gays/lesbians in Ghana as saying that its membership numbers Forty Thousand (40,000). It is difficult to imagine how in a population of say 23 million, with an arguable 200,000 self-identified gay/lesbians, only 40,000 have registered with the organization. Bunkum! The same people claim that they gay/lesbian population is growing. So why is there no evidence of this growing trend reflected in at least what the writer wants us to believe, is some sort of official mouthpiece of gay/lesbian groups in Ghana? The reason is simple – the writer thinks that Ghanaian are a group of naïve simpletons, who can be bamboozled by obscure IP Addresses and false statistics. The people of Ghana will show that we have the brains, the know-how, the common sense and the values to expose the deviants behind this charade, and will match them anywhere, anytime, with facts and values.



THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS



The effort at giving some validity to a so-called growing gay/lesbian lifestyle in Ghana is not limited to the use of technology and employing questionable statistical analyses and spurious data. The effort gravitates towards the very centers of global power by co-opting say recognized international organizations and important international declarations, such as the United Nations and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). This is an effort to legitimize a lifestyle, which even at the time of the founding of such organizations and the promulgation such declarations, was considered not normal. To pretend that the UDHR was conceived explicitly with gay/lesbian lifestyles in mind is nonsense. The UDHR however includes a number of important recognitions, which closely mirror the United States Declaration of Independence. This is understandable for obvious reasons: the idea of the United Nations was originated by America (President Roosevelt and his wife). Not surprisingly, America is also the country among others in the forefront of legitimizing the gay/lesbian lifestyle. They just recently passed a law to allow gays/lesbians in their military, a matter subject to more complicated discussion than this article allows. The point to be made however is that gays/lesbians in the United States have successfully gravitated towards the centres of power, by exploiting politics and political associations, with American politicians tripping over themselves to publicly proclaim in high rhetoric, their support for gay/lesbian rights in an effort to garner and pander to gay/lesbian votes. This, I believe, is the ultimate gay/lesbian putsch in Ghana, to eventually co-opt Ghana Government officials (politicians) into buying the gay/lesbian lifestyle with political contributions and votes. Yet no other species of life exists in which the essence of its existence is singularly focused on how it has sex. The very essence of human life is far deeper and beyond mere manifestations of sex and sexuality. The difference between say horses, chickens, rats, cats and the millions of plant and animal life and HUMANS is not in how we have sex; it is of a more complex anatomical and physiological make-up; obviously, discussing it here would be obstructive.



The sweeping reference by the writer to the UDHR does no justice to the specific provisions of the declaration itself. In fact, part of his/her strategy is to mask acceptance in a widely accepted and important declaration such as the UDHR is, on a wave of change, and then to label anyone who opposes the gay/lesbian lifestyle as uncomfortable with ineluctable change, intolerant, bigoted and homophobic. However, a closer examination of the UDHR’s articles reveals the exact opposite. For instance, Article 29, sub-section (2) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states the following:



“(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”



My point is that one can pick and choose portions of the same UDHR to make convincing arguments which advance one’s selfish agenda, such as I have just demonstrated. However, to hijack these declarations as though they specifically and emphatically champion a gay/lesbian lifestyle by a clairvoyant United Nations in 1945 is to insult the collective intelligence and morality of Ghanaians. For example, I could infer from the above that anything (including a choice of lifestyle, such as stealing, robbery or being gay/lesbian) which is perceived to be disruptive to the “…morality, public order and the general welfare [of] a society…” such as Ghana is, should be condemned outright. This is the tricky argument the pro-gay/lesbian writer is making. He/She forgets that by picking and choosing what he/she believes helps make his/her argument, he/she is making a case for CHOICE, and that this choice is at the core of the gay/lesbian lifestyle. Gays/lesbians have sought to convince the rest of humanity that being gay/lesbian is a natural biological configuration of some sort, rather than a matter of choice, worse still, a craving for a freak’s life. This is the platform on which they force acceptability among so-called straight people. It is an argument anchored in the very fundamentals of capitalism, in which scarcity and choice are constantly morally antagonistic.



The reality is that what gays/lesbians would have us believe is a simple, natural, progression in change, is actually a complicated invention by freaks bent on falsely portraying man’s inhumanity to man. Like the atomic bomb, which was invented to serve the needs of the United States’ war effort, the gay/lesbian lifestyle has a similar putsch. We have since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, woken up to a world of nuclear proliferation, in which we wish we never let the nuclear bomb genie out of the bottle. Will we like to wake up in a world of sex-for-all-for-whomever-with-whatever? The logical answer to this question lies in a world in which human procreation is truncated and human survival is itself questionable, for if the gay/lesbian lifestyle is gathering and growing naturally (and not by choice), then a day comes when we all sleep with our own sexual kind; then no one procreates, no new life emerges, no children are born and life then discontinues at a specific point in the future. Unless of course, humanity as we know it morphs into some other thing – a thing which might propagate in a completely different manner; but at that point, we will cease to be human, won’t we. To what base uses we have descended!!!



Dery, Francis

Email: deryfrancis@yahoo.com