Ugandan President Signs Anti-Homosexual Bill

Yesterday, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed Uganda’s controversial anti-homosexual bill into law. The bill further criminalizes homosexual behavior, which was already illegal in Uganda. First-time offenders can be imprisoned for up to fourteen years and there are even harsher measures for “aggravated” homosexuality—an instance where an HIV-infected person commits homosexual acts. At first the bill included the death penalty for the most intractable offenders, but that provision was removed from the bill after an international outcry.

Of course, international criticism of the bill as it is currently formulated has still been vociferous. Representatives for the White House and the UN have already come out against it. Secretary of State John Kerry leveled a thinly veiled threat against Uganda after the bill passed:

Now that this law has been enacted, we are beginning an internal review of our relationship with the government of Uganda to ensure that all dimensions of our engagement, including assistance programs, uphold our anti-discrimination policies and principles and reflect our values.

In other words, passing the anti-homosexual bill has cooled U.S.-Ugandan relations, and could possibly result in a decrease of humanitarian funding. Because the United States is totally against discrimination. Unless they are discriminating against values they don’t agree with. Which is fine for us to do. But not Uganda. Obviously.

The history of the anti-homosexual bill is of interest. It was passed by the Ugandan legislature in December of 2013 and Museveni took his time to sign it, asking a panel of medical experts for further information on the nature of homosexual behavior. Apparently, Museveni’s support of the bill was contingent on one fact: is homosexuality a matter of nature or nurture?

According to Museveni, if homosexuality is a matter of nature—meaning homosexuals do not have a choice about their behavior—it would be wrong to support a bill criminalizing “the way they were.” But if homosexuality is a matter of nurture, and homosexuals can actually deny their “abnormal” impulses, Museveni said he would sign the bill.

Well, the medical panel came back definitively in favor of calling homosexuality a social behavior which was not rooted in genetics or biology. So Museveni signed the bill. It was a gutsy move, and he will probably pay for it in the short-term with a loss of international support.

But if that means his country can move forward as a more sovereign nation and possibly curb the continued spread of HIV/AIDS within their borders, I think that Museveni’s controversial decision will be vindicated.

58 responses

  1. The change in HIV/AIDS infected people in that country will be interesting to see. One issue is that some people will not change their behavior – and just do their thing behind closed doors and be very discrete about their activities. If it lowers their over all cases by a large percentage it going to send an interesting message to the rest of the world.

    This would be great if more countries we give aid to created such laws. Then we stop giving away money we do not have to others.

    • If Christians were really concerned about AIDS in Africa they wouldn’t be telling the people there (who’s only information comes from Christians) that condoms are a “sin”

        • With its ban on condoms the church has caused the death of millions. teachings against condoms are causing millions of Africans to contract AIDS. The fact that you aren’t aware that it’s happening comes as no surprise.

          • Incorrect Bob, the church has not caused any deaths from lack of use or giving approval of use of a condom. The people are responsible for their own actions, period, end of story. So, running around having sex with everything that moves (immoral behavior) is what has made people sick. The church teaches sex inside a marriage and if the “people” would follow it sexually transmitted diseases would no longer be transmitted. However, the fact you can not understand its a moral issue not a condom issue does not surprise any of us.

          • Paul, condoms can prevent HIV & when the church preachers against them they have blood on their hands. Which is nothing new for the church

          • You don’t like it when Africans (which you’ve already stated you hate anyway) die of AIDS, but you’re OK if tens of millions of human beings are snuffed out by abortion? Why is bloodshed considered compassionate as long as you’re in favor of it?

          • No condoms can not prevent HIV and other diseases… read the labels. They have to straight up tell you it will not prevent transmission of disease. They can claim will lower your chances of disease, but can not say will prevent as it does not nor can it prevent it.

          • Yes, it is a health issue. You and the “People” have no business blaming the church for the immoral behavior that leads them to HIV and other diseases. If they would act like mature adults and not sleep around with everyone or a large number of partners you would not get sick. Very simple. You are not born with these sickness. If a health person has sex with a health person, it does not create HIV. You get HIV from sleeping around with enough people that one of them has the sickness, and you failed to know your partner well enough to know if they are clean of sickness or not. This has nothing to do with the church. And by the way, a condom will not prevent you from getting HIV or Aid. The virus is very small, a condom is porous. It not so porous that sperm will pass through, but it is porous enough that virus will pass through.

            This must be another area that you really have not study in much detail. I did a report on it in college. No condom can make the promise it will keep you safe from sexually transmitted diseases – matter of fact watch the advertisement for condom. They have to make a clear statement saying it will not prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Have no sex or knowing your partner is clean and not sleeping around is the only way to avoid sexual diseases. Which is what the church preaches… so they have saved more lives of those that listen.. those that do not listen would not care if the church told them to use or not use a condom… they are not going to listen either way. So, you are completely wrong from all angles.

          • Paul, if you knew ANYTHING about Uganda you’d know that the genocides have left a great many people (men & woman) raped with HIV. consistent condom use can prevent the spread of HPV in up to 70 percent of cases. BTW, going into small African villages & telling them not to have sex doesn’t seem to work.

          • and just how many drug stores do they have on the corners in these small African village or are you going to run new condoms out to them all the time? Remember most of these town are dirt poor so you will not be paid for the condoms you are bring out to them..

            So, again I think you are missing the point. When you teach morals, people will have less problems, sexual and in other areas. I did not say it is easy. Again, no condom can not prevent HIV. If you have sex with someone with aids, using the highest quality condom, you still have a great that 1 in 5 chance of catching aids from that one time sexual encounter. Percentage wise it’s safer to play Russian Roulette as that is 1 in 6.
            Morals will also stop or lower rape cases (nothing is perfect and some people will always break laws and rules)… However, that is were the government should be stepping up to start doing something as well. By the way, do you really think a person committing rape is going to stop and put on a condom?? Do you think that is the first thing they are worried or thinking about?

          • I don’t agree with your numbers but even if they were true (1 in 5) that would save millions of life’s. Many human right groups have given free condoms to people throughout Africa but the church tells them it’s a sin to use them. The point isn’t a rapist is going to put on a condom, the rape victim ends up with HIV & spreads it to their husbands or wife’s.

          • The point is, the teaching of morals solves of the problem. Yes, a case will always come up here and there, but there will be less rape.

            How can you say you do not agree with 1 in 5. When you stated 70% protection earlier. You do realize 70% is less then 1 in 4. My number is safer then your number, and that is a per time use. So you have sex ohhh say ten times or more and your partner has the disease, with or without the condom. It sucks, yes, but it just the way it is… condom will not solve the problem.

            If rapist are the starting point (as you said give the sickness to say, the wife…) then that is the start point to solving the problem. Teach the people of the country more morals… And maybe a bit of fear by have a death sentence to rape cases. If guilty of rape and you have aid and passed it along to your victim you will be executed right away. If did not pass along sickness then it will up peers or judge to decide if execution or prison time (repeater – execution). It may seem harsh, but I think ruining a couples love life by raping and bring the sickness of aids into their home is even more harsh then killing a rapist.

            Think about it… if the wife knows she has aids (from rape), and that even with a condom she will in time pass it off to her husband. She in theory is killing her husband by doing the natural thing that a married couple should be doing. So, if she loves him, does she not have sex with him again, to save is life? This is a unfair situation for that family to be in because of a rapist.

          • latex condoms will prevent the spread of HIV 7 out of 10 times. Where do you think the people of Uganda are suppose to get their morals? From Christians? It was fundamentalist Christians in Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) that committed the rapes & genocide! In most cases people don’t know they even have HIV until they become sick.

          • Paul, I actually agree with you at some level that teaching morals will begin to solve the problem(s). The ONLY way to do that is to BAN RELIGION & teach them secular humanism

          • You can not have morals without religion (Good religion, not some twisted version that comes out claiming to be Christian or whatever else…there are a lot of groups claiming to be something they are not, which gives a bad name to the genuine groups.). You need a higher being to “set the standards” otherwise you will just have floating standard that change from time to time (morals should never change – murder is murder, stealing is stealing, fundamental conduct of what is right/good should never change… Also, helps if someone believes that they are being watched and judged on every action they do, even if there is no other person around them. Kind of forces (scares) them into doing the right thing. So it does not matter on what you believe Bob, Religion and the morals they teach are what keeps the average person in check. No, government will ever come close to have that kind of influence over the people. And if their is no believe in a higher being, then people will learn to lie has no punishment unless caught by another human…

            Every country that has ban religion has had the big moral and ethical issues. There has not be a lot of countries that have tried it, mostly will find them under Communism. Which communism has so many issues against society that maybe difficult to pin point the key factors and say, “for sure these are the x number of elements that caused this problem..”

            7 out of 10 times means 1 of 3.3 will fail. That is a lot higher risk then the 1 in 5 number I started off with (that 80% protection verse your 70% protection). You must understand, any percentage of failure means it can not full protect you… Its just a matter of when, not if. That is assuming your partner has the sickness.

          • No. Nazi were not Christian… Hitler killed many Christians and the same way as the Jews. He did not single out just Jews. The Jews just had the largest number killed by Hitler. He was very much against all religions just like you and most liberals.

          • No did not flunk history… You do know Hitler was not Germany he was an individual. The people of Germany were mostly Christian, that does not make Hitler and members of the Nazi party Christian. Two he was raised by one Christian parent and had Jewish back ground from his father background. He was very much against Christian and anyone who wanted to be in a leadership position under him had to have the same views, others wise they’d disappear one day (its the way of the liberals)….

            You do not have to believe me, you just have to study history:

            Adolf Hitler was raised by an anticlerical, sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother. Baptized and confirmed as a child in Austria, he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity, but in power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of
            political considerations.[1][2][3][4][5] It is generally believed by historians that Hitler’s long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany.[6][7] Hitler’s architect Albert Speer believed he had “no real attachment” to Catholicism, but wrote that he had not formally left the Church prior to his suicide. The biographer John Toland noted Hitler’s anticlericalism, but considered that he was still in “good standing” with that Church in 1941, while historians Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian


          • Wikipedia? Hitler was a Christian, the German people that were Christian believed he was Christian as did the Pope & heads of most churches in Europe that supported hitler

          • What can you not read???? It makes it very clear he was raised Christian, but was “No real attachment” to Catholicism and he broke away from the Church. Like many people who claim to be Christian, but are not they might not say the broke away, but then will not behave like a Christian. He killed thousand of Christian, I do believe it was a couple hundred thousand Christians. No people did not believe he was a Christian. I never read about the Pope, but I doubt he’d be fooled by Hitler. He probably hoped he would behave and start acting like a Christian and of course the Pope is not going to make a public announcement that Hitler is not a Christian, especially since one of Hitler good buddies was Benito Mussolini. The people of Germany want out from the economic difficulties, Hitler sold them on the ideas of, “Hope, better future for the children, Dreams, and such” almost identical to Obama’s campaign. So, the people probably did not care what religion he was… he was going to be their savior.

          • It’s you that cannot read The Catholic and Protestant Churches in Germany set the foundation for WWII and the atrocities to occur. Popes, priests and nuns supported Hitler’s regime. Indeed, Hitler could not have come to power without Christianity’s help.

            read the link & learn the truth


          • Congrats you found a hate page filled with false facts… I read the false facts then looked things up for real…. The Church remained very strongly neutral. You need to learn to do proper research. Your source should be able to back its statements up and conformable with other source. It can not… Hate to trust Wikipedia all you want, but one thing is true about them today. They do not allow any change to their page until information is research and confirmed.


            Pius XII lobbied world leaders to prevent the outbreak of World War II
            and then expressed his dismay that war had come in his October 1939 Summi Pontificatus
            encyclical. He followed a strict public policy of Vatican neutrality
            for the duration of the conflict, but preached against selfish
            nationalism and, through the use of diplomacy, sermons and radio
            broadcasts and the creation of the Vatican Information Service, Pius
            worked to ameliorate the suffering of the victims of the war. He
            permitted local churches to assess and formulate responses to the Nazis,
            and instructed them to provide discreet aid to Jews

            I suppose you like to deny the historical fact of Hitler killing hundreds of thousand of Christian for helping the Jews live (hiding them and feeding them…). You like to believe your liberal b.s. source verse real stories like the “Diary of Anne Frank” – The story was not unique at all, it was very common in fact, what made it unique was the fact it was written down and not burned by the Liberal German Nazi. But you live you your false fantasy world. I stick with real historical facts and reality.

          • I never said I hated Ugandans. I feel sorry for them. That country has been through hell & back & now with the help of American evangelicals they are headed for yet another genocide by the LRA (lords resistance army) this time against gays, people that know gays, etc, etc, etc

          • Since when do people listen to the church? Besides, I don’t know of any church, except orthodox Catholic, that bans condoms.

  2. Sad day for humanity when it’s a small nation like Uganda that finally stands up against these child rapists pedophile homosexuals.

  3. They made a decision for their country. This country is always telling people what they should not do. We need to mind our business, leave other countries alone. Why try to bribe people to do what you want. All people don’t want to live like Americans.

  4. While I don’t agree with the death penalty (and it is nice that they took that part out of the law), I do agree with making perverted behavior and sexual-activity that spreads AIDs a crime.

      • Stuff it Bob. The only people that have contracted AIDS made the mistake of having sex with a bi-sexual fag. Like you. And you disgusting homo’s demand to donate bold for God sake !

          • TEABAGGERS are the homo’s and the bi’s such as you. The outbreak of HETERO aids is just as much B_LLSH_T as MAN MADE GLOBAL WRMING….BOTH have been THOROUGHLY DISPROVED and anyone who says otherwise is repeating a LIE probably for FINANCIAL GAIN !!

          • You people are just beyond stupid. one out of every ten new HIV infections is caused by injecting drugs. Now, go back to teabagging your kids!

          • JUST LIKE A LYING LIBERAL…..that “ANSWER” has absolutely NUTHIN to do with the discussion …it just gives a stupid liar something to say….SUPPOSE I agree with your assertion that 10% of aids is caused by drug injections….How does that change ANYTHING said prior ??

  5. Why do we in the US think we can impress our moral standards on other countries?

    John Kerry voices his moral indignation over Uganda who is hurting the feelings of the gay population… while he ignores the plight of slaughtered Christians across Africa.

    What a guy!

    • Why… because we give them funds (that we really do not have)… and therefore feel it’s our right to impose our values on the people receiving the funds. Which to some degree I have to agree, but this is one step to far. Example, if the country had brutal slavery (slavery does not have to be brutal: if allow time off, keep families together, good lodging, well feed, good health… well that might be better then our minimum wage.), but brutal as in not treated humanly, poor food and housing, whipped and such. Well i could see us saying, You need to stop that behavior before we give aid.

      • Ahhhh… No Bob, Christian have not committed genocide. If a group is committing a form of genocide they are not christian no matter what they want to claim. Christian have no record of genocide. The Jews have a few stories in the Bible and Muslim are told to convert or kill which is a type of genocide. Of course liberal Governments have committed the largest number of genocides of any group of people.

        • of course! The no true Scotsman fallacy at work again. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is a Christian movement that committed the genocide in Rwanda

Leave a Reply