Illegal to be gay in Uganda

[The Folk Prophet]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/uganda-just-passed-law-making-152205776.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZWV2YS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD-Q3kxmsSq8vbc_D1KMqTqMD9GYdAguriMaazRCkLRHD5mfwQWtk-3dWy8S_X7aBFTVE_vFlHGGx1s-b6nyi3llNCnR6oxfgMn3kjVFxh1nmXWQVJBne7JxOPI0QEeaaonnoQfgL6FJ-rTLzEFlUcRPX2leCTFvm6xmLbpjjHYI

 

Thoughts?

[NeuroTypical]

Not sure if Ugandan law covering sexual topics provoke any thoughts in me at all.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not sure if Ugandan law covering sexual topics provoke any thoughts in me at all.

I have no response to your response

[mirkwood]

I'm with both of you.

[Just_A_Guy]

I do not know the native language(e) of Uganda, I am unfamiliar with either the legal history or the legislative process of Uganda, and on this topic—the number of people/media outlets I trust to accurately interpret and explain it all to me is precisely 0.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Here I thought we'd end up with a fiesty, interesting, debate filled thread. Hmm.

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Here I thought we'd end up with a fiesty, interesting, debate filled thread. Hmm.

OK... You asked for it.

My immediate thought was, "Where do we stand?" I had to consider this from a personal basis, a religious/faith basis, and a Constitutional/governance basis (if the US were to follow a similar path).  There is an awful lot of push/pull with each of these.

• The Law of Moses prescribes a death penalty for homosexual acts.
• We are not under the Law of Moses today.
• My libertarian sensibilities & The Constitution proscribe such penalties for these "crimes."
• Religiously (not official position of the Church, but asking what is the effect considering the salvation of mankind?) the proper stance of "society" (not necessarily the law) should be MUCH closer to this position than what we see in America today.  By making this statement, I must emphasize that I'm NOT for violence against anyone for simply engaging in a homosexual act.  It is infuriating that I have to add this disclaimer.  But such is the state of society today.

The mechanism that the Constitution provided (past tense) was that the freedom of religion was to be one of the TOP freedoms.  The reason is that religion can codify societal morality in a manner that would be tyrannical in the hands of government.  But when given this power without the force of government to enforce it, that power is absolutely appropriate. 

Even if 60% of the nation identified as non-religious (including atheists) preaching the word would have a moderating influence on societal morality.

Quote

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

 -- Alma 31:5

When religious voices are silenced, we lose this advantage of religious societies. That is what cancel culture is really about.  The one voice that could be the loudest to bring us back from the brink is the thing that is being fought against.  They cry about hurt feelings.  They say that we're "shoving" our religion down their throats.  They accuse people of "hate."  They even accuse people of violence for simply speaking their beliefs.  But the reality is that they want to silence the word of God.  Lie all they want; defend them all you want.  But that is the true goal.  Silence the word of God.

And when you silence the word of God, there is a very obvious void which tends to be filled by a very obvious alternative.

[Vort]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have no response to your response

[MrShorty]

I don't know if I can communicate my thoughts coherently, but, hey, this is the internet which is full of all kinds of incoherent stuff, so who cares if I fail.

Interestingly, my first thought goes way back decades to Jr. High in Utah in the early '80s. For those who have not, yet heard of the weather comparisons for this year to those years, we had a few years of high precipitation that was leading to the Great Salt Lake rising above levels that people were comfortable with. I recall a social studies teacher taking a small jab at the Utah legislature for passing a law forbidding the GSL from rising above a certain level. What was the state going to do? Cuff the GSL and haul it off to prison if it rose too high? In the same way, does Uganda think that it can stop people from being LGBT+ by making a law that criminalizes being gay?

Of course, I know that such legislation can be more nuanced. In the case of the GSL, of course the state wasn't simply criminalizing the lake's size. I was young, so I don't remember the details, but I expect that such legislation would provide guidance and resources to people and agencies and communities for flood control and mitigation and other ways of dealing with the possibilities around the lake getting too large/high. In the case of the Ugandan legislation, I'm not sure why the legislation exists. The description in the Yahoo piece seems to only describe criminal punishments (fines/incarceration) for violators, but nothing that really addresses that there will inevitably be people who are gay in Uganda. In the same way that, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, when you are thinking in terms of criminal law, everything undesirable wants to carry a consequence of fines or imprisonment, but it seems to me that the legislation has no purpose other than to add reasons for the long arm of the law to impose fines or imprison people.

My thoughts -- and probably worth about what you paid for them.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

does Uganda think that it can stop people from being LGBT+ by making a law that criminalizes being gay?

Nowhere does that article say this is the goal.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In the same way, does Uganda think that it can stop people from being LGBT+ by making a law that criminalizes being gay?

I have two thoughts on this. 1. I guess it depends on how much one thinks "grooming" is a thing. 2. I wonder how difficult it is for people to leave Uganda.

On 1., I think a law such as this is meant to curb that, but also to suppress the expressions of homosexuality. It will, inevitably, force it underground. On 2., and per the second half of your post, I would think having a path that helps people exit the country if they dislike the law would be a good idea.