I don’t think your answer is ‘objective’, as it cites ‘culture’, which is a relative and dynamic concept.

More importantly, you have not answered the question I asked you, which was a request for a moral justification of your proposed ‘treatment’ (which you have yet to specify, by the way, despite my request) of your gay compatriots.

(The question you answered was why you do not approve of homosexuality – but I didn’t ask that question, since I already know the answer to it.)

Your statement that ‘family counts for nothing’ in Britain is more cheap anti-western rhetoric. I could, at this point, make some observations of my own about ‘side-dishes’, but I won’t. Furthermore, you have admitted (correctly, and for a second time in this thread) that heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission of HIV in UG, so suddenly talking about gays in this respect is something of a nonsequetor in this context.

Richard,

You are entitled to your opinions based on western culture. I am entitled to mine based on African culture and moral values. Gayism will not be permitted breathing space in our continent.

Obviously, the change from ‘ABC’ to ‘AB’ (pushed by, among others, Martin Ssempa) may have contributed to the recent cited reversal in UG’s otherwise laudable achievement.

Another point: your use of the term ‘sodomite’ shows that you haven’t read and/or understood the story of Sodom & Gomorrah properly. Read it again, then ask yourself this question “it is truthful and just to call people like GUg a ‘sodomite’?”

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/11/09-071175/en/index.html

Right … Rolling Stone: I’m all ears, Maazi! (I’m sure you’ve got interesting stuff to sya on this topic.)

All international organizations, where Westerners control decision-making, are opposed to criminalization of gay sex. There is nothing new about that. The WHO article reads like a propaganda piece written by a gay lobby group rather than a global health organization. Sample an excerpt from the WHO article—-

[Gays] want to contribute to society through their work and their spiritual lives. However, many feel that they need to hide their sexuality from their colleagues, friends and congregations.

Very pathetic !! Is this what a person is supposed to find on a health website?!! Did the authorities at WHO hire GayUganda to act as their chief press officer?

With regards to your question as to who is behind the upstart tabloid that have been giving you Western chaps irritable bowel syndrome, I will say this—-

It could be anybody. It could be Hillary Clinton, the late Ronnie Reagan or former President George Walker Bush or even the Euro-American gay lobby. It is entirely possible that the editor Giles Muhame is the person behind the tabloid called Rolling Stone.

Do I understand that, if the persecution of gay people in UG were stopped, you believe that many Ugandans would suddenly CHOOSE to be gay? (Hasn’t happened here in Britain since 1967, as far as anyone can tell.)

One of the most damaging ‘public health’ scenarios must surely be that in which a gay person is ‘forced’ to marry, but is having ‘random’ secret affairs on the side. Greater openness and honesty about human sexuality would help to avoid this. ‘Sexual secrecy’ and hypocrisy are two of HIV’s biggest allies, IMHO.

I suggest you simply ignore Maazi! I promise you, you’re not going to change his mind. Neither will you receive any compassionate, logical or coherent prose from him. The rest of us learned this the hard way 😉 Good luck my friend, but srsly, just ignore him. I stopped reading his posts months ago. There are far better ways to carry on the fight than engaging this person 🙂

Maybe tomorrow.

Bye for now.

On the story of Sodom & Gomorrah: it is of course (attempted) ‘gang rape’ that is cited as the ‘trigger’ for their destruction.

Moving on …

You are clearly intelligent and well read, and consider (maybe rightly) yourself well informed.

The CNN interview with GUg took place in the wake of the publication of the ‘Rolling Stone’. Would you like to give us your opinion on who was really behind the libellous article in that ‘newspaper’?