March 23, 2017

January 28, 2011

Uganda Monitor: Can We Talk Honestly About Homosexuality?

The National Monitor addresses what may now be a pressing national debate for Uganda.

What we need is an honest national dialogue on homosexuality in order to forge a consensus on the rights of those Ugandans who choose to be gay and those who oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Holding puritanical and extreme views on the matter, whether liberal or conservative, will divide us, rather than help us find a mutually acceptable compromise.

People like David Kato and others who might be gay are Ugandans and enjoy the same rights and protections of the law as heterosexuals. We cannot send them into exile neither, lock them away, or hang them.

We need to have an honest discussion about how to ensure that their rights are upheld without violating the rights of other Ugandans.

Peaceful and stable societies only emerge when we understand and try to accommodate those who are different from us, or who disagree with us – not by ostracising or killing them.

Notwithstanding an earlier assertion that we might question, since it’s not yet at all clear why this murder took place (which means that the following is a bit of a non-sequiter)

Police say they are investigating the circumstances of his death and it is not yet clear whether this was a homophobic attack in which Mr Kato was targeted for his sexual orientation or his thoughts about the matter.
Whatever the motive behind the killing, this incident reminds us of the homophobia that is widespread in our country and society – and the deadly consequences of not dealing with it.

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Proper debate is good. That means that we neither give way to the bigots who attack people on the basis of their behaviour, nor do we kowtow to the unreasonable demands of the social liberals who really don’t have any desire for “conversation” either. (Can I hear a “listening process”?!)

That would be a hard middle-ground to find but surely it’s worth pursuing?

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



The reaction to this terrible murder sounds a bit like the reaction to the Arizona shooting:

“Notwithstanding that the murderer was an absolute loon with leftist/anarchist political tendencies who never belonged to the tea party or listened to conservative talk radio…this murder ‘reminds us’ that conservatives should shut up.”

I disagree on a number of levels with the article. I do think the government not only has the right, but also the duty to regulate human behavior…and that includes human sexual behavior. Namely, the government has been invested by God with the power and duty to protect divinely created universal institutions like marriage. For the defense and protection of the people and the safeguarding of creation ordinances, homosexual behavior should be illegal…as should pederasty, adultery, pornography etc.

[1] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-28-2011 at 04:59 AM · [top]

I think I’m with you, Matt - but that doesn’t negate the call for a proper discussion, does it? Of course, I think we share the same lack of confidence that such an honest discussion can ever be had.

[2] Posted by David Ould on 1-28-2011 at 05:01 AM · [top]

So far as I can see, there is not a scintilla of evidence that David Kato was victim of homophobic murder. There has been a series of brutal murders in Kampala that have frightened ordinary Ugandans.

The New York Times, of course, has jumped in to connect the dots, but, even they admit at the bottom of their article:

Friends said that Mr. Kato had recently put an alarm system in his house and was killed by an acquaintance, someone who had been inside several times before and was seen by neighbors on Wednesday. Mr. Kato’s neighborhood on the outskirts of Kampala is known as a rough one, where several people have recently been beaten to death with iron bars.

No doubt we shall soon hear from the ABC and Primates about this. It seems to me it is bogus to have “conversation” resulting from what is quite likely a totally unrelated incident.

[3] Posted by Stephen Noll on 1-28-2011 at 05:50 AM · [top]


Proper debate is good. 

Proper debate about what?  That it is wrong to murder people?  That’s not much of a debate.  The actual subject of the envisioned conversation is revealed in this statement:

Peaceful and stable societies only emerge when we understand and try to accommodate those who are different from us, or who disagree with us – not by ostracizing or killing them.

The implication is that calling homosexuality a sin is threatening to a peaceful and stable society because it ostracizes homosexuals and leads people to kill them for their homosexuality.  The “debate” becomes “Resolved: Your retrograde opinions should be suppressed because they are causing people to get killed.”  Why should we legitimize that statement?  Why should we even fight on their ground?  Their ‘solution’ is to ostracize us for our opinions - which evidently will not lead people to kill us because progressives are enlightened and stuff, I guess.  In fact they are doing nothing but exploiting an act of violence to invert the moral terrain.  The debate they have in mind isn’t over whether certain people get ostracized.  It’s about who gets ostracized. 


[4] Posted by carl on 1-28-2011 at 07:45 AM · [top]

from the BBC:

the main suspect - who they say lived with Mr Kato - remains on the run.

If you lie with dogs you get fleas.

However, the editorial quoted here has gotten the dialectic all wrong. In order to prevent becoming the target-of-the-week of the leftist invective, a clue should be taken from the NYT, and the thesis-antithesis modified thusly:

those Ugandans who choose to be gay and those who oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle.


those Ugandans who were born with innate same-gender-attraction and those who are bigots.

There. All fixed.

[5] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 1-28-2011 at 08:24 AM · [top]

What happens when we discover that Mr. Kato was killed due to robery or revenge and not “for being gay” unless you count being killed by his lover is a consequence of his being gay?  My guess is that it will then be hushed-up just like Matthew Shepherd’s killing here in the US.

It turned out Matthew Shepherd’s death was the result of a drug deal gone bad and not homophobia related violence.  This should have been readily recognizable: one of the perpetrators was gay himself.  But once an event no longer fits the prevailing dialectic the facts are discarded quietly because who would want a pesky thing like the truth to get in the way of social re-engineering?

[6] Posted by billqs on 1-28-2011 at 09:04 AM · [top]

It is important to remember two things:

First, the man who was murdered was already dead in his sins.  He was in a state of rebellion against God and against God’s design and will for men and women.

Second, the leading cause of harm to ‘gays’ is ‘gay on gay violence’ and the injury, disease and unnatural death sustained the practice of homosexuality.

In all the years growing up in a very small town, there were several notable deaths due to homosexual dates gone violent.  Several other persons who engaged in homosexuality were beaten nearly dead by their lovers. 

In over fifty years of living there, I know of only one instance of someone being beaten by an outsider - and that because he molested someone’s son and the father might have been disposed to vengeance by hiring someone to teach the perpetrator a lesson. 

Moreover, there were several men and women in the community who were known to perpetrate their attentions and despoil boys and girls, leaving them to a life of misery and confusion thereafter.  Somehow, no one knew how to restore them after they had been violated and trespassed against and their identities were disoriented, distorted and confused.  There was no help in the churches in our community, because these perpetrators were leaders in the church.  They were the Gene Robinsons and Susan Russells that dominate and run the Episcopal Church today. 

We have heard the evil counsel that Gene Robinson would give the young people, “Explore your sexual gifts.  Experiment with the alphabet of sexual orientations.”  These promulgate vile, deadly deceptions leading to eternal death right in the church. They prey upon the fatherless, those whose parents have abandoned and neglected and failed them because of their own wounds and sins.

This is an outrage!  The place the fatherless should find safety is full of serpents.

[7] Posted by St. Nikao on 1-28-2011 at 09:29 AM · [top]

RE: “The reaction to this terrible murder sounds a bit like the reaction to the Arizona shooting:

“Notwithstanding that the murderer was an absolute loon with leftist/anarchist political tendencies who never belonged to the tea party or listened to conservative talk radio…this murder ‘reminds us’ that conservatives should shut up.”

My thought exactly, Matt—only you beat me to it.

Of course, the killing *could* be because the killer hates gay people.  Or . . . it *could* be any number of other reasons.  But—just as with the Arizona killings, the eager press leaps on the dead bodied and proclaims that this all reminds us of . . . whatever it is that they happen to want.

[8] Posted by Sarah on 1-28-2011 at 09:42 AM · [top]

This comment caught my eye because it does not make sense to me.

Holding puritanical and extreme views on the matter, whether liberal or conservative, will divide us, rather than help us find a mutually acceptable compromise.

I would like them to cite examples of extreme and puritanical liberal and conservative views. What they are in fact condemning are conservative views. This is not unbiased reporting. It is agenda driven manipulation.

[9] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-28-2011 at 09:55 AM · [top]

Would that the Matthew Shepherd murder had been hushed up. His name is still used in calls for forced toleration of depravity by coercion of the state. The only part that has been hushed is the evident motives of the perpetrators.

ABC 20/20, Nov. 26, 2004:

re: the convicted culprit:

O’Connor says he never heard McKinney express any anti-gay attitudes. In his interview with Vargas, O’Connor reveals his belief that McKinney is bisexual. “I know of an instance where he had a three-way, two guys and one gal,” he said. “Because he did it with me.”

O’Connor added, “I know he’s bisexual. There ain’t no doubt in my mind. He is bisexual.”

McKinney’s former girlfriend Price says she now believes that as well. “He was always into trying to talk me into having a three-way with one of his guy friends,” she said.

His accomplice also admits that they were on a 7 day meth bender, had run out of drugs, and went actively looking for a victim.

Unless somebody looks under all the damp rocks, this story will be framed in the same way.

[10] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 1-28-2011 at 10:07 AM · [top]

What strikes me as false and obfuscation is the line, “Whatever the motive behind the killing, this incident reminds us that homophobia is widespread… ”  No it doesn’t.  It reminds me that murder is horrible.  Such silly sophomoric syllogism - victim was gay, victim was murdered, ergo homophobia is widespread.  All might be true, but the linkage is illogical and not necessarily related.  An equally logical syllogism holding the same illogic would be as follows: victim was gay, victim was murder, ergo Brett Favre dominates ESPN coverage.

[11] Posted by Michael+ on 1-28-2011 at 10:21 AM · [top]

[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 1-28-2011 at 10:28 AM · [top]

We wait for weeks for a response from the ABC about Communion meetings he has attended or his response to events in the Communion. Sometimes there is no response at all to events like the recent ceremony conducted by Bishop Shaw yet he needs to rush off a comment about this during the Primates meeting. It says something about priorities and his agenda to me.

[13] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-28-2011 at 11:18 AM · [top]

Since the ABC seems impelled to issue breathless press releases on injustices in other lands, I wonder if we can expect one soon on the following video clip from Afghanistan of a couple accused of adultery (HT: BBC via NRO)

The video begins with Siddqa, a 25-year-old woman, standing waist-deep in a hole in the ground. She is entirely hidden in a blue burka. Hundreds of men from the village are gathered as two mullahs pass sentence. As Taliban fighters look on, the sentence is passed and she is found guilty of adultery. The stoning lasts two minutes. Hundreds of rocks – some larger than a man’s fist – are thrown at her head and body. She tries to crawl out of the hole, but is beaten back by the stones. A boulder is then thrown at her head, her burka is soaked in blood, and she collapses inside the hole. Incredibly Siddqa was still alive. The mullahs are heard saying she should be left alone. But a Taliban fighter steps forward with a rifle and she is shot three times.  Then her lover, Khayyam, is brought to the crowd. His hands are tied behind his back. Before he is blindfolded he looks into the mobile phone camera. He appears defiant. The attack on him is even more ferocious. His body, lying face down, jerks as the rocks meet their target. He is heard to be crying, but is soon silent…

[14] Posted by Stephen Noll on 1-28-2011 at 12:07 PM · [top]

I notice that there has been absolutely no compassion shown by KJS or any other homosexual activist for the not infrequent lawlessness and murders which have occurred in the neighbourhood where David Kato lived.

[15] Posted by Bill C on 1-28-2011 at 12:48 PM · [top]

ENS is all over this.  Matthew Davis squeezed in every Integrity talking point.

[16] Posted by Ralinda on 1-28-2011 at 01:05 PM · [top]

What a tragedy. May his soul rest in peace and may his murderer repent.

It’s kind of heartbreaking to see this as a weapon used in the intra-Anglican wars.

[17] Posted by driver8 on 1-28-2011 at 01:25 PM · [top]

Yes.  And his Grace’s PR department missed this:

Apparently there is passe murder and important murder at the top of the Anglican food chain…........

[18] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 1-28-2011 at 01:55 PM · [top]

I’ve silently noted the quickness with which Episcopalian and in this case Anglican leaders LEAP to comment/act/talk about/publicly ruminate about all the things in the newspaper that shock us.  I believe they are internally thinking “Thank you God for sending this tragedy so that I can look at and discuss things that have absolutely nothing in the world to do with our current problems and how I am doing my job addressing them.”  Does anyone else get that feeling?

[19] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 1-28-2011 at 02:09 PM · [top]

Oops, didn’t mean to hit send so fast.  It is a collective case of deflection.  You know, like when you ask your child about getting his homework done, and he wants to talk about the New Orleans Saints.  Or when my wife asks me what I did about so and so, and I start talking about movies that she has mentioned that she would like to see.  Of course, the wife, unlike TEC pewsitters, has an amazing ability to IMMEDIATELY spot it, call it out, and get the conversation right back on the track she’s going.

[20] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 1-28-2011 at 02:13 PM · [top]

In our state newspaper, there was a big article on the Episcopal Diocesan Convention, coming up in the State Capital.  Our Bishop (Bishop Grey of Miss.) has decided that the main topic of conversation is going to be 50 years of race reconciliation, or something like that.  Not that race relations in the deep South are unimportant, but WHY DONT THEY TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

[21] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 1-28-2011 at 02:17 PM · [top]

They should have a parade. Invite the TEC bishops of CA to lead it. That’ll show those terrible bigots all about love.

[22] Posted by Festivus on 1-28-2011 at 02:35 PM · [top]

From the Daily Mail and the Examiner:

An ex-convict who was staying with Kato prior to his murder and a taxi driver had arrest warrants issued against them in connection to the killing, according to Onyango.

Perhaps the headline should have read, “Man Murdered by Ex-Convict”

[23] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 1-28-2011 at 08:52 PM · [top]

I recall Rowan Williams jumping the gun to smear a Nigerian bishop who had been alleged to have said that “gays are not worthy to live” but which turned out to be a baseless lie</a>. (See full text of what the Nigerian bishop actually said here.)

One would think Rowan Williams would have learned to pause before speaking from the first incident.

We’ll find out the facts in the coming days. It may have been an attack because his sexual orientation which is terrible. It may have been domestic abuse which is terrible. Fanning political flames at this point is simply wrong.

[24] Posted by robroy on 1-29-2011 at 11:11 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.