Since time immemorial there has always been a clear distinction between conduct that is deemed morally correct and that which is morally repugnant.
However, this clear line of demarcation seems to have disappeared today.
The issue of whether homosexuality should be accepted has been a hot topic for quite some time in most Western countries.
In most states the constitution has been used to challenge laws that are said to criminalise homosexuality and afford protection to gays and lesbians under the human rights mantra.
Let us assume that provisions relating to freedom to associate freely and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were not enshrined in the constitution, how else would homosexuality be justified on the grounds of morality?
There is no doubt in my mind that the Lesotho Constitutional Court would uphold the rights of gays were they to take their case to the court.
This is because our constitution bears close resemblance to that of South Africa where gay rights are protected under the constitution.
The government’s attempts to criminalise homosexuality have been futile. These attempts have been defeated on the grounds that such attempts violated the constitution of Lesotho.
The attempts have been seen as violating the people’s right to freedom of association and were therefore undesirable because they discriminate on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation.
There is a group among homosexuals who argue that homosexuality is innate and that they were born homosexuals. This group argues homosexuality is not alien to African culture.
These arguments might hold water but the issue really is not whether homosexuality ought to be tolerated as a socially acceptable behaviour.
Should we as Basotho blindly follow Western ideologies and cultural practices?
We need to stand our ground as Africans and say no to this perversion that I see as uncivilised and barbaric.
To hold that what is constitutionally valid is also morally acceptable is illogical and untenable.
Human practices like abortion, prostitution and euthanasia are legally permissible in most states. But should this be understood to mean they are morally acceptable?
Morality has nothing to do with legal norms.
The true test of determining whether homosexuality is morally right and therefore socially acceptable is to use one’s conscience.
Today, one cannot even appeal to the Bible to make an assertion on the contentious issue because we are told the law has nothing to do with religion or morality.
What part then can religion play in our lives when people go out of their way to justify their evil practices and then argue that the law and religion are two parallel notions?
Does the church and the Bible still play an effective role in our development as a people or have we reduced the Bible just to an old but useless book?
Over the last three decades Lesotho has undertaken huge campaigns to educate people on the dangers of HIV and Aids.
It is therefore absurd to note that the very cause of this monstrous disease is being promoted under the guise of human rights.
Studies have shown that HIV and Aids prevalence is twice as high among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals.
So who stands to benefit from promoting gay rights in Lesotho?
Recently, popular South African soap operas, Generations and Rhythm City, which are watched by millions in southern Africa, have introduced themes around gay issues.
The aim is simple and straightforward — introduce homosexuality in soaps so that black communities can see the practice as normal and socially acceptable behaviour.
Parliament, churches and human rights groups must be on their guard to ensure that our cultural values, which see homosexuality as immoral, are not eroded.
Behaviour that is contrary to our culture should not be tolerated.
Let us therefore look at homosexuality as a moral issue rather than a legal one.
What is wrong today will always be wrong in the future.