Sunday, February 25, 2024
HomeOPINIONS AND COLUMNSOWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA: The Postmodern Mind, Micheal Foucault And Radical Sex Revolution As Threats...

OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA: The Postmodern Mind, Micheal Foucault And Radical Sex Revolution As Threats To Uganda

By Oweyegha-Afunaduula

On 21 March 2023, the Parliament of Uganda passed the Anti-homosexuality Bill 2023, which attracted more than 380 members of Parliament to debate, but not before one Member of Parliament, Fox Odoi, presented a Private Member’s report contradicting the Bill before it was universally passed.

It now awaits Presidential Assent to become law. However, a lot of ignorance still obtains in the country regarding homosexuality and lesbianism, although the two sexual choices have been rampant, especially in the city of Jinja in Busoga subregion of Uganda. this article is an attempt to widen public awareness and knowledge of the origins and spread of the vices globally. The two seem to have penetrated Uganda in modern times with the rise and rise on development as a strategy of modernization.

Development and Modernization

Way back in 1997, Professor Dani W. Nabudere, in his article “Beyond Modernization and Development”, or Why the Poor Reject Development”, published in Geografiska Annaler, Series B., Human Geography Vol 79 no. 4 by Taylor and Francis Ltd, indicated why the poor reject development.

Indeed, development as a strategy of modernization has, as Nabudere observes, failed to meaningfully take place in most countries on the globe. Most of these countries are underdeveloped.

If development has failed, then modernization, which promises development has also failed. Any country, which continues to put it at the centre of its development, transformation and progress, is bound to fail. It will just waste time, energy and money pursuing something, which is unachievable.

Developed countries base their so-called “foreign aid” on the two failed idea: development and modernization. To put it another way, development and modernization have failed to bring about meaningful development, transformation and progress in the poor countries. Instead, what we continue to witness is forced development with all its negative impacts, including violence and social evils.

Governments respond to these by committing more and more time, energy and money to ever-rising militarization, oppression, repression and suppression alternative ideas and forces in development and governance rather than work to improve the quality of life of the citizens.

People denied quality life are prone to many dangers, including mind pollution and exposure to cultural penetration, ethical and moral decay and collapse, spiritual erosion and social evils.

In Uganda, years of pursuit of development and modernization through money bonanzas to select individuals to force them into the sterile culture, have instead yielded more and more exclusion, marginalization, denials, oppression, repression, suppression, poverty, slavery, exploitation, despondency, displacement, haplessness and hopelessness.

Nevertheless, the rulers continue to hatch money bonanza-oriented schemes to sell the sterile culture of money, imposed development and modernization. Such schemes include Operation Wealth Creation, Myooga and Parish Development Model.

The focus is agriculture, but the majority of those managing the schemes do not come from the traditionally agriculture-based human energy systems but from the nomadic-pastoralist human energy system, which traditionally depends on cattle and grass, and is, therefore, not directly land-integrated.

Members of the dominant nomadic-pastoral system have gone on to grab large tracts of land from the traditionally settled communities that have thrived on tilling the land. Instead, agricultural production has plummeted so meteorically that the country now depends heavily on Ugandan workers abroad, who send trillions of shillings into the country either as tax or remittances for individual or family development, or on dwindling foreign aid”, which is robbery from the poor and needy by other means.

Almost simultaneously trade in human organs, illicit drugs and social vices – such as homosexuality and lesbianism – have come to dominate the socioeconomic, sociocultural and sociopolitical landscape of the country.

Increasingly, foreign aid to Uganda and other underdeveloped countries, is hinged on the receiving country being soft on the vices of homosexuality and lesbianism and accepting them as human rights through legislation. I have elsewhere characterized such money “aid” as “wicked money”.

Modernization and Modernism

Even if modernization failed long ago, modernism has persisted. More so, the so-called modern mind, which dominated the period from 1700 AD to 2000 AD, which was the period of renaissance in Europe, following the vandalization of philosophy and the arts in Rome by the Vandals of Europe, persists.

It was a period of the clash of civilizations – one dominated by the dogmas of religion, mainly Catholicism, and the other dominated by non-dogmatic science championed by men like Galileo Galilee.

Modernism was a movement in the arts in the first half of the twentieth century that rejected traditional values and techniques, and emphasized the importance of individual experience.

It refers to a global movement in society and culture that from the early decades of the twentieth century sought a new alignment with the experience and values of modern scientifically-driven industrial life.

Philosophical Mindset and Scientific Mindset

Thus, the clash of civilizations I have mentioned above was a clash between the philosophical mindset and the scientific mindset. The scientific mindset triumphed and went on to disintegrate knowledge.

The philosophical mindset is an attitude or approach to life that involves the critical examination of beliefs to ascertain what they mean, if they are true, and what value they have. A philosophical mindset is not enough to effectively interact in and with our environment.

The scientific mindset means creating and testing a hypothesisis (i.e., a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) about the world around us.

Therefore, approaching our observations about the world through a scientific lens is vital to a successful interaction with our environment. As time went on it became clear that the philosophical mindset and the scientific mindset are integral to each other and work together to give meaning to the world we live in.

Modern Mind Versus Postmodern Mind

.If there is a modern mind there is also a postmodern mind. Today they coexist and are antagonistic to one another. Postmodernism is a late twentieth century approach in art, architecture and literature that typically mixes styles, ideas, and references to modern society, often in an ironic way.

The Modern Mind

The modern mind is encyclopaedical, covering the major writers, artists, scientists and philosophers who produced the ideas by which we live today. Philosopher Richard H. Schlagel’s (1996) “From Myth to Modern Mind: A Study of the Origins and Growth of Scientific Thought” explores the transition from the mystical mind to philosophical mind to the modern scientific mind, which has shaped the modern view of the world.

In his book “Origins of the modern mind, psychologist Merlin Donald (1991), he advances thoughts which have led to new cultural innovation, creativity, experiences, level of cognition and linking of ideas through integrated thought and appropriate crossing of domains of intelligence. This was the beginning of going away from compartmentalized thought.

In his “The Birth of the Modern Mind”, intellectual historian Alan Charles Kors, explores the intellectual history of the 17th and 18th centuries. It was a period of evolution of modern science, which challenged previous ways of understanding reality then.

He called it “perhaps the most profound transformation of European, if not human, life”. This scholar who taught at the University of Pennsylvania for well over 30 years, details the vast changes in how Western people thought due to intellectual innovations in the 17th and 18th centuries.

One scholar commented that he is remarkably unbiased and deep in getting into the very borne marrow of thinking in different time periods. Kors also discusses changing institutions affecting how culture functioned intellectually during the period.

In his “The Birth of the Modern Mind” published in 1989, Paul Oppenheimer, stresses the self and consciousness. A Google search of Self-consciousness can be defined for an individual as the awareness of his/her own body in a time-space continuum and its interactions with the environment – including others. It also encompasses the awareness that the individual has of his/her own identity, built over time in interaction with others.

British intellectual historian, Peter Watson (2011) has in his book “The Modern Mind” published by Harper Academic, explored the intellectual history of the 20th century. In his “A Terrible Beauty:

The People and Ideas That Shaped the Modern Mind -A History”, he states: “One of the many innovations of modernism was the new demands it placed on the audience. Music, painting, literature, even architecture, would never again be quite so easy as they had been”.

French-American anthropologist Pascal Boyer (2009) wrote that the hallmark of the modern human mind is that it is a cultural mind. He asserted that human biases and cognitive faculties have resulted in or encouraged cultural phenomena. Elsewhere he also asserted that minds make societies.

The Modern mind and religion

In his article “Religion and the Modern Mind” Ernest Davies (1907) relates the modern mind and the matters of faith and belief, which all reduce to religion.

The Heritage Organisation has submitted that religious belief and practice contribute substantially to the formation of personal moral criteria and sound moral judgment. Regular religious practice generally inoculates individuals against a host of social problems, including suicide, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, crime, divorce [and perverted sex].

According to Marripedia, of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Marripedia explores the effects of religious practice on society. It states: “Parents’ religious practice affects their children’s educational outcomes.

The greater the parents’ religious involvement, the more likely they will have higher educational expectations for their children, and the more likely they will communicate with their children about schooling and other matters.

Their children will be more likely to pursue advanced courses, spend more time on homework, establish friendships with academically oriented peers, avoid cutting classes, and successfully complete their degrees.

Students in religiously affiliated schools tend to exhibit a higher level of academic achievement than their peers in secular schools, particularly in low-income urban neighbourhoods [ and rural areas].

For example, studies continue to find that inner-city students in public schools lag behind in educational achievement, compared with students in Catholic schools. Youth who frequently attended religious services were five times less likely to skip school, compared with peers who seldom or never attended”.

The cultural values of a religious community are also a significant pathway to academic success for adolescents. For example, to earn a high school diploma or take advanced math courses, children must plan for the future and structure their activities accordingly.

Religious communities typically invest in forming an ethic of such discipline and persistence. A recent study confirms both this indirect contribution of religious community values and the direct influence of the students’ own religious activities in promoting academic achievement.

The Postmodern Mind

Postmodern religion considers that there are no universal religious truths or laws. Rather, reality is shaped by social, historical, and cultural contexts according to the individual, place, and/or time.

The postmodern mind is essentially anti-God and anti-Christ. It rejects the spiritual, moral and ethical guidelines God laid down for society regarding family, community and countries through time.

It is against all the ideas of the modern times dominated by Christianity. It thrives in every sphere of human life and all institutions including churches and universities. It hates modernism altogether and loves postmodernism, which is its new religion (Postmodern religion).

To put this another way: postmodernism or the postmodern mind tells us that we can say whatever we want about God, and that, in a certain sense, only our imagination limits the ways in which we can express different possibilities.

Jan-Olav Henriksen (2010), in his article “Postmodernism and the unchangeability of God” published online, writes that postmodern thought that emphasises the changing and constructive element in all our concepts and conceptions, also seems to challenge the very idea of the unchangeability of God.

He asks, “How can we think of God as unchangeable, when the means by which we do this seem to change”? After presenting some main traits of postmodern thought relevant for this problem, the arguments in the article take a twofold line: first, thinking of God requires that we accept the internal logic of the concept, that do not allow us to think about God in any way whatsoever; second, it is also argued that thinking about God is based in the conceptions of the (religious) life‐world and that these conceptions exist in a dialectic relationship with the concepts and informs and directs the way they can be developed.

On this basis, the idea of God’s unchangeability seems to be in consonance with the idea of God’s otherness, as opposite to everything that can be experienced in the world (as changeable). The outcome of this is that postmodern thought allows a positive affirmation of unchangeability as a basic element in Christian thinking about God.

Postmodernism and Feminism

Postmodern theories exerted a powerful influence on feminist thought in the latter half of the twentieth century, and have persisted in the 21st Century at many university campuses, where departments and faculties of women studies and gender have been established.

According to Wikipedia, the goal of postmodern feminism is to destabilize the patriarchal norms entrenched in society that have led to gender inequality. Postmodern feminists seek to accomplish this goal through rejecting essentialism, philosophy and universal truths in favour of embracing differences that exist amongst women to demonstrate that not all women are the same.

These ideologies are rejected by postmodern feminists because they believe that if a universal truth is applied to all woman of society, it minimizes individual experience. They warn women to be aware of ideas displayed as the norm in society since it may stem from masculine notions of how women should be portrayed. Inherent in this school of thought is the tendency towards lesbianism.

Feminists argue that the Bible did not invent patriarchy, but it only expresses the prevalent state of male dominance in those times; that even though the Bible was written by men on inspiration from God, male dominance was largely sold through that age’s culture, which was highly patriarchal.

They go on to argue that if the Bible were to be rewritten in our time, there would be a distinctive difference in traditional gender nuances, as we humans have evolved and women’s inclusion in virtually every part of society is fast gaining a foothold. Therefore, radical feminists reject the Bible in its current form because it is male-centric and because the creation story in the Bible portrays women as an afterthought of God.

They argue that the superiority complex of men over women implied in the Bible by the suggestion that man was created first then woman second from the rib of man is a fallacy. Their reasoning is that if that were the case then man is inferior to animals, which were created before him according to the Bible story.

They are convinced that man and woman were created simultaneously They cite Book of Genesis 1:26-28 God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle, And, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth”.

God created human beings; he created them godlike, Reflecting God’s nature. He created them male and female. God blessed them: “Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge! Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.

So to them, God created them male and female at the same time and He gave both genders the mandate of dominion, multiplication and leadership. They stress that it is rightfully expected of a woman to lead, take charge, and be on the frontline and that that mandate was handed over to humanity (both male and female).

Feminists support their argument that men and women were equal by citing women’s place in the ministry of Jesus Christ. “It is clearly stated in the gospels that Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene – this was symbolic.

She was the first to experience the sacrosanct event of His resurrection on which our gospel creed is built. He appeared first to a woman in an age when the testimony of women was not accepted in the courtrooms.

Let us exemplify how He exalted womanhood — a woman, otherwise disqualified to take up active roles in the Church, was the first bearer of the gospel of good news. Jesus qualified WOMEN”.

On the concept of equality Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28-29 strengthen feminist argument that there is no real difference between men and women. Paul wrote, “There is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free people, between men and womenSo they argue, “Among us, we are all equal. That is, we are all in a common relationship with Jesus Christ”. Paul added, “If you belong to Christ, then you are the descendants Also, since you are descendants of Abraham, and will receive what God has promised”. These words of Paul strengthen the feminist belief that gender equity exists even in the Bible.

But what is the relationship between feminism and lesbianism? There is what is called Lesbian Feminism. Lesbian feminism is a cultural movement and critical perspective that encourages women to focus their efforts, attentions, relationships, and activities towards their fellow women rather than men, and often advocates lesbianism as the logical result of feminism. However, it is common for lesbian feminism to be expressed as lesbianism – the quality or characteristic in a woman of being sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to other women.

This is sometimes called lesbian nature of lesbian identity. Otherwise, according to Wikipedia, “a lesbian is a homosexual woman or girl. The word is also used for women in relation to their sexual identity or sexual behaviour, regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction. The concept of “lesbian” to differentiate women with a shared sexual orientation evolved in the 20th Century”.

Postmodernism and Homosexuality

Professor Carlos A Ball (2002) in his article “Sexual Ethics and Postmodernism in Gay Rights Philosophy” published in Vol. 80 Number 2 of North Carolina Law Review, introduces the issue of gay rights philosophy. He used the writings of homosexual Michel Foucault on ethics as a care of the self to explore the meaning of a contemporary gay and lesbian sexual ethic.

He argues that the legal, medical, and moral decodification of “same-gender sexuality” that took place in the United States in forty years prior to 2002 led to the emergence of a gay and lesbian sexual ethic defined by values such as openness, mutuality, and pleasure.

He goes on to argue that a gay and lesbian sexual ethic offers a powerful alternative to the traditional Christian sexual ethic that makes moral judgments based, in part, on the nature of particular sexual act. He rightly observes that “opponents of gay rights often dismiss the sexual practices of lesbians and gay men as being either immoral or morally worthless.

Many of these critics abide by a conception of sexual morality and ethics that limits the range of acceptable sexual conduct to that engaged in by individuals of different genders, preferably within the institution of marriage”.

In his “The History of Sexuality” Volume 1 Michael Foucault laid the ground for academic interest in favour of an anti-essentialist conception of human sexuality, and the subsequent legal codification of sexual norms, especially in the United States, and the creation of a sexual identity category known as “the homosexual” in contrast to “the heterosexual”.

Foucault emerged as one of the most forthright philosophical heroes or saints of the postmodernists. He actually lived as a practicing homosexual and a homosexual intellectual. He believed that practices of freedom are the constitutive elements of an ethical life. He applied this to his sexual practice.

Foucault explains how the discourse on sexuality in Western countries went through a transformation in the seventeenth century. At the beginning of that century, “sexual practices had little need of secrecy.” People discussed sexual matters openly. The obscene, and the indecent were quite lax.

By the end of the 20th century, however, what we can characterize as the modern era of sexuality began. According to Ball (2002) two principal phenomena defined this era. First, areas of enforced silence were established where matters of sexuality were not to be discussed; these areas included the relationship “between parents and children, for instance, or teachers and pupils, or masters and domestic servants.’

At the same time, a second phenomenon took place; namely, an explosion of discourses concerning sex. Through discourses of science, medicine, and psychiatry, so-called experts began to study and analyze sex at a great level of detail. Different disciplines sought to schematize human sexuality through an endless discussion and cataloguing of sexual desires, tendencies, and acts.

The term “homosexual” according to Foucault first appeared at the end of the nineteenth century, when the modernist discourses of sexuality were at their apogee (Ball, 2002). What before had been viewed simply as sexual acts (such as sodomy) now became the basis for a socially constructed identity.

As Foucault quips, “the sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species”. Homosexuals see it as unfair to measure them against heterosexuals, because as Foucault put it they are a separate sexual category. Their sexual organ is the anus, the lower terminal end of the alimentary canal.

It is directly connected to the 8-inch rectum, which stores the wastes (faeces) before they are expelled from the alimentary canal via the anus. Naturally and divinely the anus is not a sexual organ. Naturally and divinely the sexual organs are the vagina of a woman and the penis of a man.

Naturally and divinely when a woman and a woman intercourse a fetus is formed in the womb of the woman after the sperm and egg fuse, it grows and develops in an average of 9 months, before it is expelled from the womb as a baby.

Some thinkers and writers assert that there have always been homosexuals, even if different societies have perceived them in different ways at different times. Studies suggesting the possibility of a biological or physiological basis for sexual orientation have added some support to the essentialist position, though the meaning of those studies remains highly controversial (Ball, 2002).

Homosexual intellectual Michael Foucault went on to write two more books stressing freedom to sexual orientation: The History of Sexuality Vol II: The Use of Pleasure and The History of Vol III: The Care of the Self. Shortly before his death from AIDS in 1984, the homosexual intellectual held an interview under the title “The Ethics of the Concern for Self as a Practice of Freedom. He emphasized that one could be free and ethical as well.

Morality for Foucault “means a set of values and rules of action that are recommended to individuals through the intermediary of various prescriptive agencies such as the family (in one of its roles), educational institutions, churches, and so forth (Ball, 2002).

Foucault records that morality in the ancient times was self-centered. This was, however, followed by the Christian period when the emphasis in matters of sexuality shifted from ethics and the practices of the self to “a very strong ‘juridification ‘- more precisely, a very strong ‘codification’- of the moral experience.”

In the transition “from Antiquity to Christianity, we pass from a morality that was essentially the search for personal ethics to a morality as obedience to a system of rules (Foucault, 1978; Ball, 2002).

According to Foucault, Christians used sexual sins to regulate the sexual practices of adherents. the search for personal ethics to a morality as obedience to a system of rules, lustful desires and the need to atone for those desires, mainly through confession.

The modem period, described by Foucault in the History of Sexuality, Volume I, emphasized the codification of sexual rules much like the Christian era that preceded it. Religious codes, however, became less hegemonic (though they retained considerable influence) and scientific, medical, and psychiatric codes became more important.

Modem discourses on sexuality focused on the debilitating effects (physical, psychological, and moral) of sexual desire. There was continuity from the earlier Christian period in the sense that the focus remained on the need to control improper desires and to avoid sexual acts that were considered immoral or abnormal. This focus differed from the one in antiquity, which emphasized learning how to use sexual pleasures in order to transform oneself.

Ball (2002) thinks it is possible to speak of the contemporary era as a fourth period in the history of sexuality in the West. There is continuity between the modem period and the contemporary period (as there was between the Christian period and the modem era) given that legal, medical, and moral codes retain some importance in determining the discourses of sexuality.

But the contemporary era is characterized by a partial decodification that has allowed a return of sorts to a focus on the practices of the self, albeit to very different practices from the ones found in Greek and Roman antiquity.

Intellectual and homosexual Michael Foucault did a lot to cultivate the anti-God attitude in the academia until he succumbed to AIDS in 1984. He was the most forthright author of sex perversion in the 20th century through an affront onto Christian-based values and virtues regarding creation and especially sex.

Today we see human values and virtues being eroded by the postmodernists who are casting themselves as homosexuals and lesbians. There is no doubt that our time tested ethical, moral and social order is in jeopardy. Also in jeopardy are our human values and virtues.

What are Human Values?

Human values refer to those values, which are the core of being human, not a beast. They are inherent values. gives a list of 50 human values, namely: authenticity, achievement, adventure, authority, autonomy, balance, beauty, boldness, compassion, challenge, citizenship, community, competency, contribution, creativity, curiosity, determination, fairness, faith, fame, friendship, fun, growth, happiness, honesty, humor, influence, inner harmony, justice, kindness, knowledge, leadership, love, meaningful work, optism, peace, pleasure, poise, popularity, recognition, religion, reputation, respect, responsibility, security, spirituality, stability, success, trustworthiness, wealth and wisdom. To these we may add integrity. Our individual characters are a result of the interaction and clash of these values. It is this result that make us different from one another in behaviour and actions. That is why elsewhere I have written that life is not about similarity but difference.

What are Human Virtues?

Virtues are related to values. Some values are virtues and some virtues are values. The values of honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, vitality, integrity, fairness, self-control are actually virtues.

When we say one is leading a virtuous life, the following four main values are at its centre: prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance. Five virtues are regarded as constant: benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom and trustworthiness. But others have given the following as the most important virtues of humanity: deep honesty, moral courage, moral vision, compassion and care, fairness, intellectual excellence, creative thinking, aesthetic sensitivity, deep selfishness.

The ten virtues of Buddha have also influenced humanity for centuries: beliefs, generosity, energy, patience, truthfulness, resolutions, and loving kindness. The ten often mentioned non-virtuous actions have also influenced society: no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no harsh speech, no idle speech, no craving, no lying and no divisive speech.  De Botton give, among others, empathy, self-awareness, forgiveness, balance, sacrifice, politeness, humor, confidence and hope as the virtues of the modern age.

The famous Chinese philosopher, Confucius, identified five constant virtues, namely: prosperity, loyalty, filial piety, chastity and respect. Some virtues have been referred to as heroic virtues, and they are: humility, charity, chastity, gratitude, temperance, patience and diligence.

The Bible Book of Corinthians, in Chapter 13: 1-13, gives three spiritual virtues: faith, hope and charity. Other virtues are referred to as pagan virtues, and they include: prudence, temperance and fortitude. However, there are those called heavenly virtues, namely: charity, chastity, diligence, humility, kindness, patience and temperance.

Virtues today mean the moral excellence and exhibition of good behaviour by a person or group of persons. Otherwise, virtues are attitudes, dispositions or character traits that enable us to be and to act in different ways that develop this potential. They enable us to pursue the ideas we have adopted and used to adapt ourselves to our diverse environments. From time immemorial.

Unfortunately, post-modern minds don’t want anything to do with values and virtues of which they had no role in initiating, innovating or originating, because they tend to inhibit their pursuit of pleasure in ways that common sense or nature or God do not approve of. This explains why homosexuals and lesbians are all out to recreate sex, values and virtues that are meaningful to them.

With the creation of a woman by techno-science recently, engineered sex will now be possible without necessarily assaulting humans who do not want anything to do with perverted sex. Since they want to create their own communities, homosexuals and lesbians will pursue their own brand of family and community.

Such family and community are against heterosexism, and an extension of the anti-God and anti-Christ sexual choices of De Sade and Michael Foucault in the 19th and 20th Centuries well into the 21st Century. Unfortunately, such family or community does not replicate itself. It can only go one way: extinction.

A community or world without restraints and constraints with regard to sex is a potentially ungovernable one and potentially extinct in the long-term. It means families cannot perpetuate their genealogies well in the future.

A family that is not represented in the future because its reproductive elements took to homosexuality and lesbianism. Most homosexuals and lesbians do not reproduce progeny or perpetuate lineages into the future. They may adopt other people’s children, pretend to help them but end up recruiting them into homosexuality and lesbianism.

Apparently, some parents approve of their children being recruited into homosexuality and lesbianism for monetary gains without suspecting that their lineages’ persistence in the biocultural landscape is both threatened and endangered.


In conclusion, if adult sex perversionists in Uganda choose homosexuality and lesbianism, they can go on implementing their choice, but they should beware and know that these vices are not human rights in the country. Parliament has outlawed them by passing the Anti-homosexuality Law 2023.

They should know they are now pollutants of our society. They are violating most of humanly known values and virtues that have kept families and communities as cohesive structural units of our society.

If the colonialists failed reducing African populations to a minimum the way they did in New Zealand, Australia and the Americas, then homosexuality and lesbianism are formidable tools in depopulating Africa.

It is unlikely youth who are compelled to be homosexuals and lesbians will ever have children to continue the lineages of their parents well into the future.

We should beware of wicked money being used as foreign aid or charity to promote homosexuality and lesbianism on the Continent of Africa. It must be mentioned that in countries where the vices are being promoted polticians are behind it.

In some African countries such as Uganda, some politicians – who may or may not be for homosexuality or lesbianism are fearful that if they openly resist the vices, they will not get foreign aid or charity to help the economy.

But this is at the expense of the integrity of the countries. The most harmed will be the youth on whom we depend for continuing as members of the communities of nations, some of which are solidly behind the spread of the vices. It is a human crisis.

Since the Parliament of Uganda has passed The Anti-Homosexual Bill, there is every indication that the President of Uganda will assent to it and it becomes Law, although UN rights groups have appealed to the President not to assent to the Bill. We should remember that the UN is dominated by the West where most countries have even legalized same-sex marriages.

The new law, if assented to by the President of Uganda, will only show that legally Uganda does not approve of homosexuality and lesbianism. However, the ultimate action against the two vices must be by families, communities, Clans, religious institutions, schools, universities and technical institutions.

It is said that behind every problem is the problem of leadership. Legislative leadership has rejected homosexuality and lesbianism in Uganda. However, the country’s leadership must now lead the whole country against the evils. Counseling and education must be the pathways to correction, not punishment.

We should remember all Ugandans have a right to life. It is the duty, obligation and responsibility of the country’s leadership to ensure that the right to life of homosexuals and lesbians is preserved. Mob justice against them should not be tolerated or encouraged. However, no homosexual or lesbian should be taken lightly if he or she recruits or sexually assaults children.

For God And My Country

The Writer Is a Ugandan Scientist And Environmentalist

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are solely for and belong to the author/ writer. They don’t reflect, portray or represent those of Accord Communications Limited, it’s affiliates, owners or employees. If you have a story in your community, an opinion article. Send us an email via or WhatsApp +254797048150

- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Jjemba Roger on VJ Junior arrested
nsubuga on VJ Junior arrested
Mabonga antony rei martins on VJ Junior arrested
Herbert on VJ Junior arrested
Herbert on VJ Junior arrested
Obidike Isaac on VJ Junior arrested
ocitti Sunday Welborn on Police Arrests People Power Coordinator