Just in time for Christmas, the Uganda Parliament might just manage to squeeze in the long delayed Anti-homosexuality Bill, possibly including the death penalty provision that brought about an international outcry a while ago (when the world wasn't quite so busy.)  

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/16/51026

There is an Avaaz petition on the subject

http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_gay_death_law/?biXwoab&v=1942

No doubt some feel free to dismiss the Ugandan police (as they know better sitting in England....) - but the police have reported a robbery that led to murder  - tragic.....but before dismissing them, anybody seen any evidence to contradict them?

A more encouraging statement from the Church of Uganda reported today, which the 'Daily Monitor' interprets as a rejection of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.  (What is interesting is the Church's call for increased child protection: many people in Uganda regard homosexuality and pedophilia as the same thing, and the rumour that large numbers of schoolchildren were being 'recruited' was the spark that set off the demand for the bill in the first place.)

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/858926/-/view/printVersion/-/j8i3qkz/-/index.html

"Daily Monitor  Tuesday February 1, 2011

Anglicans say No to gays Bill

[Picture of Archbishop Luke Orombi]

There has been a year's gap in this thread.  My attempt to join the new thread has confused the good folk who have to check this stuff, so that the correctionmessage left there doesn't make sense (and probably needs removing.)  During this year the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been considered by a Committee of Ugandan M.P's.

The news of David Kato's funeral was indeed shocking.  Yesterday a timely article appeared in the 'Daily Monitor', which is a Kenyan publication .  I didn't spot that it was actually carrying something the Church of Uganda issued a year ago.  I found this statement, in its own way, more shocking than David Kato's murder. 

"From 'Daily Monitor' 30.1.2011

Church of Uganda’s position on Homosexuality Bill

By Henry Luke Orombi

Posted Friday, February 12 2010 at 00:00

In Summary:  Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.

The Church of Uganda associates itself with the concerns expressed in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. However, instead of a completely a new Bill, the Church recommends a Bill that amends the Penal Code Act (Cap.120) addressing loopholes, in particular:

Protecting the vulnerabilities of the boy-child.

Proportionality in sentencing;

And, ensuring that sexual orientation is excluded as a protected human right.

Further, we recommend involvement of all stakeholders in the preparation of such a Bill in order to uphold Uganda’s values as they relate to human sexuality.

Church’s position on homosexuality

The Church of Uganda derives her mandate and authority from the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as the ultimate rule and standard of faith, given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary from salvation. Her mission is to “fulfil Christ’s mission through holistic teaching, evangelism, discipleship and healing for healthy and godly nations.”

The Church’s position on human sexuality is consistent with its basis of faith and doctrine, and has been stated very clearly over the years as reflected in various documents. From a plain reading of Scripture, from a careful reading of Scripture, and from a critical reading of Scripture, homosexual practice has no place in God’s design of creation, the continuation of the human race through procreation, or His plan of redemption. Even natural law reveals that the very act of sexual intercourse is an experience of embracing the sexual “other”.

The Church of Uganda, therefore, believes that “Homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture” (Resolution 1.10, 1998 Lambeth Conference). At the same time, the Church of Uganda is committed at all levels to offer counselling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning.

The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing.

The objective of the Bill

The Church of Uganda appreciates the spirit of the Bill’s objective of protecting the family, especially in light of a growing propaganda to influence younger people to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of expressing human sexuality.

We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to: provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman;

Prohibit and penalise homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;

Prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act;

Prohibit the licensing of organisations which promote homosexuality.

Need for a Bill that amends existing laws

We affirm the need for a Bill in light of the existing loopholes in the current legislation, specifically sections 145-148 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120), which do not explicitly address the other issues associated with homosexual practice such as procurement, recruitment and dissemination of literature. That notwithstanding, the ideal situation would be one where necessary amendment is made to existing legislation to also enumerate other sexual offences such as lesbianism and bestiality. This would not require a fresh bill on homosexuality per se but rather an amendment to the existing provisions which would also change the title to something like ‘The Penal Code Unnatural Offences Amendment Bill’.

Recommendation

As Parliament considers streamlining the existing legislation, we recommend that the following issues be taken into consideration:

Ensure that the law protects the confidentiality of medical, pastoral and counseling relationships, including those that disclose homosexual practice in accordance with the relevant professional codes of ethics.

Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.

Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.

Existing and future educational materials and programmes on gender identity and sex education are in compliance with the values and the laws of Uganda.

The involvement of additional stakeholders in the evaluation of the gaps in the existing legislation, including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, its Department of Immigration and other relevant departments. "

Now a Reader of the Church of Uganda has desecrated his Funeral Service. I find the link beetween Evangelical religion and murder shocking.

(I'm rather old fashioned)

This issue is, sadly, still with us -  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12295718    and     http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/brenda-namigadde-deportation-fear-uganda

Two coincidences make me particularly sad.  Firstly, the place where David Kato came from and where a number of gay people have been beaten to death, was Mukono.  I taught there for a year in 1966/67 under a CMS scheme.  Secondly, as it happens, 1967 was the year when homosexual activity was legalised in England.  Christians in Britain have therefore had 40 years to understand that whatever their beliefs it is important to see the controversy over Uganda's anti-homosexual law as a human rights issue.  In practice we and American Christians have sent very mixed messages which have been no help to the Ugandan churches in thinking through their own position.

Cyprian K Lwanga, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kampala, criticised the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his sermon at Rubaga Cathedral, 23rd December 2009 (Box Turtle Bulletin site, 24 December 2009).

Chris Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, has not criticised the Bill in his article 'Ugandan Church faces totalitarian liberal activism', Evangelicals Now January 2010 (Anglican Mainstream site, 17 December 2009).

Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, criticised the Bill, in his video statement to Ugandan Church Leaders, see also 'Rick Warren Condemns Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill', by Howard Chua-Eoan, Time magazine, 10 December 2009.

The Fulcrum critique of the Bill is entitled, 'Fulcrum Briefing on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda', (Fulcrum, 3 November 2009).

I would like to thank wggrace for his last post which I think is excellent and I fully agree with.  I believe it explains that there is such a difference of opinion and how wide and deep it is. What I would point out is most Christians see the promotion and defence of same sex relationships as a major departure from the faith once delivered, not just because of the disbelief of the passages about God's purposes and the condemnations, but the reasoning exposes further disbelief of other passages. And in addition, we have many who hold those views professing other established heresies such as pluralism when all the Biblical testimony claims there is no other God and no other salvation. 

For me and for many, two different faiths.

To Roger Hurding,

Sorry but I see your argument merely as massive disbelief and denial.

Again you propose I have an interpretation of the scriptures, but I haven’t given an interpretation, all I have done is cite and quote them.

I see the condemnations as not cultural, they are spoken to the people of God so as not to do these things, at Sodom, at the time of the exodus, and during the cultures where else it existed, Greek and Roman at the time of Jesus; it is obvious this is not cultural but what the people of God do not do.   

I could interpret the passages like others so that it doesn’t mean what it says, but I believe the word of God.

I would like to address again what you offered.

As to gang rape, the text doesn’t say this and says the men wanted to know (‘yada’) the men carnally. Lot pronounces this wicked and offers his virgin daughters instead. Your interpretation would imply gang rape of men is wicked but gang rape of women isn’t, but your view is based on faulty translation as well. You refer to 1 Cor 7 as Paul’s teaching, Galatians 1 tells us this isnt so much Paul’s teaching as he did not receive his revelation from man but from the risen Lord, don’t you believe that either? 1 Cor 7 mirrors the rest of the NT such as Matthew 19 where it is faithful marriage or celibacy. So what is your point exactly?

You said I cited Genesis 2 in defence of my view on marriage, no I did not, I cited it as God’s view on marriage because I believe it is the inspired word of God directly from God. The only way you could claim what you have said logically would be to assume when Jesus NT teaching repeats it in Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc that Jesus was lying when He claimed he spoke what He heard the Father say. John 14:10.

I am afraid even some of my gay and lesbian friends who do not agree with or believe the Bible at least recognise what it says.

I am reluctant to push my head above the parapet but I will give it a go. Homosexuality and views for and against it, seems to be the only game in town now.
I am very ‘conservative’ on this issue. When I read the scriptures I am genuinely bewildered that anyone can read them as commending or permitting homosexual acts or even claiming that there is any ambiguity in them. This I suspect is the failing of many conservatives. We simply cannot see what those of a more liberal persuasion claim to see. So appeals to change our views on this seem to be not only an appeal to change our views about homosexual activity but also an appeal to jettison any way of reading the scriptures that we can do with integrity. This is not to claim that others are reading the scriptures without integrity but it is to say that we do not how to do it that way ourselves. So the path to agreement between those of liberal (or less conservative) persuasion  and conservatives like me is a difficult and thorny one, likely to scratch people on both sides of the question.
To give an example of how those of a more liberal persuasion have been known to read scripture that seems to me to be radically unconvincing, the declarations of affection David made concerning Jonathan was recently cited in this forum as an example of homosexual affection. Now we know that both David and Jonathan enjoyed full heterosexual activity. There is no explicit suggestion of any homosexual actrivity. So the only way that it seems that we can assume that there was is to assume that their friendship is homosexual is to assume that any close same sex relationship is sexual. This seems to be a huge leap quite at odds with my experience, quite at odds with the experience of many others. It is also a most distubing leap. If same sex relationships must be sexual, what other relationships must be sexual? Adult/children, parent/child, teacher/pupil, brother/sister? The assumption potentially sexualises all our relationships in what I deem to be a most destructive and corrupting way. Presumably most homosexuals do not extend the assumption in this way but if they do not neither should they make it in this case.
I suspect that few homosexuals would want to use this passage to support homosexual behaviour but I think they should acknowledge that when it is used in this way the effect is to antagonise the conservatives radically.
This leads me to highlight one area of disagreement between me and the ‘liberals’. If you were to ask me whether homosexuals would ‘go to heaven’, I would answer ‘no’. There are two reasons for this. First and in this context mundanely, I am suspicious of the language of ‘going to heaven’ as it seems to undermine the doctrine of the second coming and the resurrection of the dead. Second, and more pertinent to this debate, I do not believe that heterosexuals will ‘go to heaven’ either. If we find our identity in being homosexual or heterosexual, I think we are way off beam. The drive to finding our identity in our ‘sexuality’ is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Previously we established our identity through family, occupation, land, tribe/nation. These criteria to identity are opposed to the individualism that permeates modernity. But all these criteria are losing their power as we become more individualistic. In this individualistic age, we find our identity in what is true of us as individuals and the most obvious criterion is our sexuality (I am told Foucault is very good on this). But we are Christians. As Christians, we did not find our identity in family or tribe. We are creatures of Galatians 3:28. We find our identity in Christ and thus not in our sexuality any more than in our tribe.
This in turn leads me to question the overwhelming focus in this forum on sexual issues. We really do seem to have lost our poise. Those of a liberal tendency sometimes cite the paucity of biblical texts that relate to homosexuality. This is something that cuts both ways. Clearly sex played a smaller part in the lives of those in biblical times than now. Sex used to be for fun and procreation. Now it has to function as the main carrier of identity and so we cannot but talk endlessly about it.

To Hugh of Lincoln,

Not all all, I would say promoting and defending something which scripture condemns as disbelief and denial.