I raise these points in response to Olusolape’s 36th Facebook Note, and well, Richard Ali’s responses to him. I beg the reader to patiently consider the arguements raised on Olusolape’s page, and read alongside this.

1. For me, the “the progress of tolerance” is as much a non-issue as “the fact that some people are gay.”

2. This is because, as I think, homosexuality has become a means for assertion, a medium through which modernisation is argued.

3. As Richard Ali suggests, what happened to the times when people were homosexuals without reckon, without fuss?

4. So, I think it is a non-issue that we should ‘tolerate’ homosexuals, transexuals, or whatever else they are called.

5. Well, if Olusolape argues further, asserting that there are instances of their discrimination (which might be true), I’d say that such instances are there for the simple reason that we’ve looked.

6. Being a proflific heterosexual is as much a non-issue as being a prolific homosexual.

7. We must, then, ask why it’s an issue. Only because it has become just another way of classification, of relation, of definition.

8. Remove it as a means of classification, and we have a system of no-issue, an institution that is unseen, lightless, inconsequential.

9. But, as you must ask, is the institution of homosexuality possibly inconsequential? Can humanity close her eye to a man’s sexual relation with his fellow man? As you know, this is more non-sexual than it is sexual, given the contemplation we have accorded it.

10. So we have people being “touched by your note” only because they’ve found more reason to cast their eyes at a non-issue, a favoured means of classification. And people asserting “we are more beautiful” because they believe humanity’s beauty lies in her system of classification, and the mergence of these classifications.

11. So, for me, it is not a question of changing our institutions. It is a question of taking things lightly, favouring non-classifications. This is a paradoxical way of saying the same thing!

12. Perhaps, we must shift from cries of discrimination to cries of simple aversion of (out)look.

13. This aversion is as difficult to explain as the difficulty many are having in making arguments for homosexuality.

14. So I agree with Ali: “…why would a gay person publicly advertise his gay-ness…and expect to be treated any differently from how a heterosexual person should be treated?”

15. In essence, discrimination begins where publicity begins.

16. And, ‘oversexification’ is a shared institutional and individual problem.

17. This is what Father Frobisher says to Kenneth Toomey, in ‘Earthly Powers’ by Anthony Burgess: “I think you make too much of sexuality. It is a fault of your generation.”

18. As such, when we build an institution that sexifies everything, including adverts, job offers, literature, we have a generation of homosexuals that must assert their presence; their right to be included in the heterosexually-dominated
generation of sexification.

19. I rest my case.

20. Although I might be wrong about everything I’ve written.