Comments:Uganda introduces anti-homosexual legislation

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Long live the anti-homosexuality bill

I totally agree with the Ugandan Bill against homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sickness and unless strict laws are applied, it is going to eat up all the healthy people in Uganda. Western countries that are trying to use their aid to make Uganda withdraw the bill are selfish animals who are want to distroy us. As a patriolist who loves her country with all her soul, I strongly support it and will do anything to make sure the bill is enacted. If we are to fight then am ready!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.0.7.131 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

...'patriolist'? --78.149.135.42 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence or proof that homosexuality is an illness or disease. There have been no discoveries made regarding a 'homosexual gene' or a virus or anything to that relation. Animals practice homosexual acts all the time. See: Study says nearly every species of animal engages in homosexual behavior. It all boils down to one thing: you just don't like homosexuals. That is fine. I don't like religious institutions, but as long as they don't force their beliefs on me, then I really couldn't care less. You have the right to like or dislike apples and oranges too. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Western media that is so quick to berate all things African

The law is meant to restore the cultural values, virtues and norms of Ugandans which homosexuality is targeting, especially among children.

Stop blaming Christians....Muslims, Hindus, African traditionalists...all support this law...In Africa life and fertility are sacred; anything that stunts or blocks them, such as unnatural acts, like homosexuality, are treated with contempt.

We, Ugandans know and believe that homosexuality involves practices that are dangerous and high risk to the human body which is designed for heterosexual functions.Uganda is willing to fight the spread of this abomination. Now if only the WEST would follow suit,we could rid ourselves of this vile filth.

It should be understood in the west that in black African cultures homosexuality, whether male or female, is very much taboo. Anti-gay sentiment is widespread and appears to have always been so. It is nothing to do with Western religion, neocolonialism or interference, it is simply a common theme in most African cultures.There is no need to seek out western Christian fundamentalists to explain thousands of years of African culture.

Like all complex behavioral and mental states, HOMOSEXUALITY is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, BUT results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.

Seriously though, if you care so much about men who have anal sex with other men, why not invite them over and give them asylum. That way your headache will be cured and you will have helped remove an abomination from our midst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.244.190 (talk • contribs)

"In Africa life and fertility are sacred; anything that stunts or blocks them, such as unnatural acts, like homosexuality, are treated with contempt." Unnatural acts like sitting in front of a computer typing out comments to news stories? That's surely as far from nature's eat/grow/reproduce game plan as possible. Just think, you could be out having carefree unprotected sex with random partners, advancing the cause of "life" and "fertility" and doing what nature intended instead of using the computer. Oh wait, people doing just that are the source of most of Africa's problems.

"[...] the human body which is designed for heterosexual functions." Sorry, I'm afraid the human body was not "designed" at all. Maybe you need to check up on the science of the past couple centuries, which you've apparently been missing.

"It should be understood in the west that in black African cultures homosexuality, whether male or female, is very much taboo." That's impeccable reasoning for depriving people of their essential rights: they've violated some arbitrary cultural taboo. "[Hatred of homosexuals] is simply a common theme in most African cultures." So was slavery. Are you as ardent an advocate of that "common theme" of "most African cultures?" The point I'm making is not an attack on African culture, but an attack on the idea that we should just carry on these same culturally transmitted beliefs and practices even after, under the light of reason, they turn out to be unfounded barbarisms. One thing I can say for the oft-maligned Western culture is that it's willing to practice its own revision. People have been willing to abandon aspects of Western culture that turned out to be silliness and superstition. Maybe African culture could do to borrow this method. 209.30.92.75 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To the first post: "...Please remain on topic and avoid swearing, offensive or inflammatory comments. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting." Your post os far from following this guideline.Azcolvin429 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how. Whilst I might generally remove anti-gay discrimination, we cannot possibly have a proper, fair discussion if those souls who support the idea are prevented from joining in. He didn't swear or go off-topic. Actually, I'm going to go and remove the swearing bit; virtually no-one here avoids swearing. It's stupid to allow it in articles but shy away from it in comments. I'm going to clarify that stuff which, eh, nice people find offensive or inflamatory may also be acceptable in some circumstances - I once interviewed a neo-Nazi, and it would be wrong to prevent other racists from attempting to defend themselves. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Legality and morality

Is this legislation even legal? Uganda is a member of the United Nations, and this proposed legislation certainly goes against the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The freedom to choose whatever partner one likes should not be taken from people. Of course, it is wrong to have intercourse with chickens or goats, but because they are unable to give consent, not because it is unnatural or wrong. It's technically rape. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is between two consenting people in the privacy of their own home. The government has no right to interfere with people's private lives, especially for reasons as flimsy as these. Dendodge _T\^C 17:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to Section 18 of the bill: "Any international legal instrument whose provisions are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act, are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency". --78.149.135.42 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Then that clause violates international law as well. If anybody could just insert that into their bills, there'd be no point in having human rights in the first place. Dendodge _T\^C 10:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This bill would allow Ugandan officials to sever any ties with any nation it so sees fit to see that if passed, the law is enforced. I would assume it would mean withdrawing from the United Nations too. Is this legal? Absolutely. If their leaders or congress or the likes, legally pass a bill with the required votes, then yes it is all entirely legal and they can do whatever they want, even if its unlikely they would pull out of the UN. Is it moral? That would depend on an individuals point of view and their religious beliefs. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they would pull out of the UN just so they can legally kill homosexuals. If they pull out of the UN, they can do whatever they like, but until then they have to abide by the laws it imposes—that's what it's there for. Dendodge _T\^C 23:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dendodge is right. They cannot pick which bits to abide by. They can either stay in the UN and act illegally, or they can leave it. There is no halfway house, which is what the Ugandans are trying to pretend they can create. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But just because the law is there, to allow them to leave (for example) the UN, doesn't necessarily mean they will. Egypt imprisons homosexuals and so does Iran. They even beat them. But yet they are still part of the UN. It's not being halfway, and so far the UN as far as I know, has not condemned this act yet. I am willing to bet they won't until if and when this becomes law. However, (for example) if it does pass and they do not leave the UN, that does not mean they won't cut ties with other parties. Remember, the US congress passes laws, and states do too, that some, or many people consider to be outrageous or immoral even illegal. But nonetheless, they are passed and become law, therefore making it or a certain act legal (or illegal) ((In this case severing ties with so and so)) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You've spotted the elephant in the room: legality is a moot point as the UN will do fuck all about it anyway. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Part of the issue is the impotence of the UN. It's a governing body that has now power beyond what it is loaned by its members, and few members would be willing to get involved in Uganda over a bill like this. The Swiss will impose their economic sanctions, and I would hope other modern nations will do the same, but relying on the UN to do something is a bad idea. Could you imagine what the US would be like if the Federal government only had the power the various states felt like giving it (rather than the powers as outlined in the Constitution)? As much as the idea goes against the ideals of the US, the United Nations needs to have its own power and not be reliant on other nations going along with otherwise toothless resolutions. --CyberStormAlpha (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I pretty much agree with that. I will add the proviso that they need to ban countries proved to be committing human rights violations from any of the committees on such, or as rotating members on the Security Council. This Ugandan thing? Ignorant nonsense. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Treating homesexuals differently.

We are to love our fellow man. This is true. But when you pass all this legislation, regarding homosexuals, then they start getting special treatment. And this special treatment just gets deeper and deeper, to where, they are being treated more special than those that are hetrosexual. This is for fear that they are being discriminated against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.82.197 (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but killing them is a step too far in the opposite direction. Dendodge _T\^C 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The death penalty is only for fecal sexualist rapists (aka "aggravated homosexualists"), there is a list of all sorts of things in the bill relating to homo acts one can be involved with and you only get 5-7 years. I don't see these same homos writing articles anywhere denouncing how the death penalty is bad for hetero rapists which has existed in most every country for thousands of years and still does in dozens of countries today.

The reason people don't understand why serious laws like those being considered in Uganda need to be different in Africa is because AIDS is killing **millions upon million** of children and adults and threatening the future existence of ENTIRE nations and people groups. AIDS is proven to be tied by large degree to people becoming involved in homo acts, or becoming involved with prostitutes who have been involved in orgies with others who have been involved in homosexual acts (aka fecal sex).

Men (or women prostitutes or in orgies) who involve themselves in fecal sex (homosexuality), or with prostitutes who do, then bring back AIDS (or dozens upon dozens of other crippling STDS) to their wives, girlfriends and children, DESTROYING THE ENTIRE FUTURE OF SUCH NATION ITSELF.

By imprisoning people who engage in fecal sex acts one can have a much larger statistical hope to build male and female marriages (the way of nature) which conceive children, (which no homos can create as babies are not born out of the anus through fecal sex acts), and lower the rate of those millions killed by AIDS, which is a direct result of people involved in fecal sex acts whether in orgies, prostitutes or even with some with animals (beastexuals).

Places like Uganda are on the cutting edge of the future who are trying to protect their people from a genocide inflicted by AIDS. If laws are not created to protect the general public from people who involve themselves in fecal sex (aka homosexuality), then countries like Uganda and all throughout Africa may never exist in decades to come due to massive and growing deaths directly related to people who involve themselves in such acts, and then bring their diseases to others which in turn kills them both in the end. There are too many millions of innocent children and wives dying from the perverted secret fecal sex acts of a few African men, who then share their diseases with prostitutes, who in turn share it with tens of thousands of men who never even involve themselves in fecal sex.

Homosexuals and Beastexuals are a danger to the future of all African society. These fecal sex laws may seem extreme to people in the USA to imprison people for 5-7 years or up to life for some even, but there are different laws that need to be implemented when the entire nation is at risk of extinction due to aids.

Here is what the typical hypocritical western nihilist atheist posts about this topic.

“let’s kill the stupid and ignorant bigots who continue to rant and rave against The Gays only because they hate the gay in themselves.”

Such people prove their own deviant genocidal hypocrisy. It is they who are the danger to mankind itself, and will kill everyone they can even just those just speaking against immoralities such as fecal sex.

The entire basis for homosexuality is based on HATE, hate for the opposite sex, and hate for nature itself, that is why fecalsexualists froth their hate wherever they go because their entire concept of sex IS HATE.

Hypocritical nihilism only serves for the destruction of the world.