THE IMPACT OF THE UGANDAN LAW ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE LGBTQ+

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES IN UGANDA.

INTRODUCTION.
Morality has always been the core determinant of laws in many jurisdictions in Africa and
particularly in Uganda. Ever since the revival of the scientific study of jurisprudence the
connection of law and morality has much been discussed, but the question is not yet, and
perhaps never will be settled. Every variety of opinion has been entertained, from the extreme
doctrine held by Austin that for the purpose of the jurist, law is absolutely independent of
morality, almost to the opposite positions, held by every Oriental cadi, that morality and law
are one. The question is an important one, and upon the answer which is given to it depends
upon the answer which is consequences. The problem is an intensely practical one. And on a
contemporary African setting, morality indeed influences the law.
The popular conception of the connection between law and morality is that in some way the
law exists to promote morality, to preserve those conditions which make the moral life
possible, and than to enable men to lead sober and industrious lives. The average man regards
law as justice systematized, and justice itself as a somewhat chaotic mass of moral principles.
On this view, the positive law is conceived of as a code of rules, corresponding to the code of
moral laws, deriving its authority from the obligatory character of those moral laws, and
being just or unjust according as it agrees with, or differs from them. This, like all other
popular conceptions, is inadequate for scientific purposes, and the jurist, so for at least as he
is also a scientist, is compelled to abandon it. For it is contradicted by the fact’s. positive laws
do not rest upon moral laws and common notions of justice furnish no court of appeal from
the decrees of the State. The average man confounds law and morality, and identifies the
rules of law with the principles of abstract justice.
Law is an enactment made by the state. It is backed by physical coercion. Its breach is
punishable by the courts. It represents the will of the state and realizes its purpose. Laws
reflect the political, social and economic relationships in the society. It determines rights and
duties of the citizens towards one another and towards the state. It is through law that the
government fulfils its promises to the people. It reflects the sociological need of society. Law
and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws are generally based on the moral
principles of society.
They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral
ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the
people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality.
Laws regarding prohibition and spread of primary education are examples of this nature.
Morality cannot, as a matter of fact, be divorced from politics. The ultimate end of a state is
the promotion of general welfare and moral perfection of man. It is the duty of the state to
formulate such laws as will elevate the moral standard of the people. The laws of a state thus
conform to the prevailing standard of morality.
Earlier writers on Political Science never made any distinction between law and morality.

Plato's Republic is as good a treatise on politics as on ethics. In ancient India, the term
Dharma connoted both law and morality. Law, it is pointed out, is not merely the command
of the sovereign, it represents the idea of right or wrong based on the prevalent morality of
the people. Moreover, obedience to law depends upon the active support of the moral
sentiments of the people. Laws which are not supported by the moral conscience of the
people are liable to become dead letters. For example laws regarding Prohibition in India
have not succeeded on account of the fact that full moral conscience of the people has not
been aroused in favor of such laws. As Green put it, "In attempting to enforce an unpopular
law, a government may be doing more harm than good by creating and spreading the habit of
disobedience to law. The total cost of such an attempt may well be greater than the social
gain." Although law and morality arc interdependent yet they differ from each other in their
content, definiteness and sanction
Overtime, activities of the LGBTQ+ community have gradually increased in Uganda that
greatly affects the moral beliefs of Ugandans as Uganda is a highly conservative society that
greatly believes in religion and aspects of culture.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)  are subject to active discrimination and
stigmatisation.As it is entirely against our morals and the laws have continued to proove blind
to this aspect.
But this act has also proven non workable as it never specifies the actual activities.

Background of the problem.

Homosexual relations were accepted and commonplace in pre-colonial Ugandan society. [8]
[9]
 The British Empire introduced laws punishing homosexuality when Uganda became
a British colony. These laws were kept after independence.[8]
The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 was passed in 2013 and annulled in 2014. The
Act carried a punishment of life in prison for "aggravated homosexuality".[10] The law brought
Uganda into the international spotlight, and caused international outrage, with many
governments refusing to provide further aid to Uganda.[11] In May 2021, the outgoing
parliament passed further criminalization laws on both sex work and same-sex sexual activity
Similarly to neighbouring Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi, male homosexual relations were
quite common in pre-colonial Ugandan society. Among the Baganda, Uganda's largest ethnic
group, homosexuality was usually treated with indifference. King Mwanga II of Buganda was
famously bisexual, known to have regular sexual relations with women, having had a total of
16 wives, as well as his male subjects whom he abused without their consent. During his
reign, he increasingly regarded the Christian missionaries and the European colonial powers,
notably the British, as threats.
Mwanga II took a more aggressive approach than other African leaders, choosing to expel all
missionaries and insist that Christian and Muslim converts abandon their faith or face death.
The Luganda term abasiyazi refers to homosexuals, though usage nowadays is commonly
pejorative. The Baganda were not the only ethnic group known to engage in homosexual acts.
Among the Lango people, mudoko dako individuals were believed to form a "third gender"
alongside male and female. The mudoko dako were effeminate men, mostly treated by Langi
society as women and could marry other men without social sanctions. [13] Homosexuality was
also acknowledged among the Teso, Bahima, Banyoro, and Karamojong peoples.[14] Societal
acceptance disappeared after the arrival of the British and the creation of the Protectorate of
Uganda.[15][8]
Presently, there is widespread denial that homosexuality was practised before colonisation.
Furthermore, the false belief that homosexuality is "un-African" or "Western" is quite
prevalent in Ugandan society.
The term kuchu, of Swahili origin, is increasingly used by the Ugandan LGBT community. A
documentary film, Call Me Kuchu, was released in 2012, focusing in part on the 2011 murder
of LGBT activist David Kato.
Legality and rights
Laws prohibiting same-sex sexual acts were first put in place under British colonial rule.
Those laws were enshrined in the Penal Code Act 1950 and retained following independence.
The following sections of that Act are relevant:[16][17]
Section 145. Unnatural offences. Any person who—
(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; [or]
(b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or
(c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of
nature,
commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Section 146. Attempt to commit unnatural offences. Any person who attempts to commit
any of the offences specified in section 145 commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment
for seven years.
Section 148. Indecent practices. Any person who, whether in public or in private, commits
any act of gross indecency with another person or procures another person to commit any act
of gross indecency with him or her or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by
any person with himself or herself or with another person, whether in public or in private,
commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
Before the Penal Code Amendment (Gender References) Act 2000 was enacted, only same-
sex acts between men were criminalized. In 2000, that Act was passed and changed
references to "any male" to "any person" so that grossly indecent acts between women were
criminalized as well, and are now punishable by up to seven years imprisonment. The Act
also extended this criminalizing such acts to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. This
effectively outlawed both oral sex and anal sex, regardless of sexual orientation, under the
Penal Code.[16][17] Conservative evangelical Christian missionaries have had significant
influence on the passage of anti-LGBT legislation in Uganda.[18]
Anti-Homosexuality Act
On 13 October 2009, Member of Parliament David Bahati introduced the Anti-
Homosexuality Act, 2009, which would broaden the criminalization of same-sex
relationships in Uganda and introduce the death penalty for serial offenders, HIV-positive
people who engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex, and persons who engage in
same-sex sexual acts with people under 18 years of age. Individuals or companies that
promote LGBT rights would be fined or imprisoned, or both. Persons "in authority" would be
required to report any offence under the Act within 24 hours or face up to three years'
imprisonment.
In November 2012, Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga promised to pass a revised anti-
homosexuality law in December 2012. "Ugandans want that law as a Christmas gift. They
have asked for it, and we'll give them that gift." [19][20] The Parliament, however, adjourned in
December 2012 without acting on the bill. [21] The bill passed on 17 December 2013 with a
punishment of life in prison instead of the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality", and
the new law was promulgated in February 2014.
In June 2014, in response to the passing of this Act, the American State
Department announced several sanctions, including, among others, cuts to funding, blocking
certain Ugandan officials from entering the country, cancelling aviation exercises in Uganda
and supporting Ugandan LGBT NGOs.
In August 2014, Uganda's Constitutional Court annulled this law on a technicality because
not enough lawmakers were present to vote.
Recognition of same-sex relationships
On 29 September 2005, President Yoweri Museveni signed a constitutional amendment
prohibiting same-sex marriage.[27] Clause 2a of Section 31 states: "Marriage between persons
of the same sex is prohibited."[28]
Recognition of transgender identity
In October 2021, trans woman Cleopatra Kambugu Kentaro was issued new ID identifying
her as female. She is the first Ugandan to have a change of gender legally recognized.[29]
In May 2021, the outgoing parliament passed the Sexual Offenses Bill, 2019, further
criminalizing sex work and gay sex in the final days of its last session. [30][31] The incoming
government indicated that it would not grant assent to the bill, meaning that it would not
become law.[32] On 29 July 2021, petitions by gay and human rights activists arose to
President Museveni not to sign another bill into law which would further criminalize gay sex,
stating that it could increase violent attacks even to people suspected of being gay. [33] In
August 2021, President Museveni confirmed that he would not sign the bill into law at this
time, suggesting much of its content is already covered by existing legislation and sending it
back to Parliament to address these redundancies.[34] Museveni reportedly also had concerns
about foreign policy implications and democratic buy-in and felt it was not politically
advantageous to sign it as he had already recently won re-election.[35]

Despite the history of hate, morality and dismay, LGBTQ activities have continued to raise
and increase in Uganda with many of them spreading their activities on the internet and even
have recognized shelters. this was the case in 2021 in Makindye where a gay couple intended
to get married but police stopped the proceedings arresting 36 men and 7 women. But did not
have an actual law to base the prosecution as it literally isn’t there and they were charged
only of spreading an infectious disease. This has led to gay activities spreading in schools,
noted was the January 2023 incident where the speaker of parliament ordered a probe about a
certain teacher at King’s College Budo that allegedly sodomised one of the students who
later reported the activities and he was sadly expelled. A regulatory law should be enacted to
curb this growing cancer.

Problem statement.
The public opinion on LGBTQ activities is not a welcoming one as of 2007 Pew Global
Attitudes Project poll found that 96 percent of Ugandan residents believed that homosexuality
is a way of life that society should not accept, which was the fifth-highest rate of non-
acceptance in the 45 countries surveyed. A poll conducted in 2010, however, revealed that 11
percent of Ugandans viewed homosexual behavior as being morally acceptable. Among other
members of the East African Community, only 1 percent in Tanzania, 4 percent in Rwanda,
and 1 percent in Kenya had the same view.
A 2013 Pew Research Center opinion survey showed that 96% of Ugandans believed
homosexuality should not be accepted by society, while 4% believed it should. Older people
were more accepting than younger people: 3% of people between 18 and 29 believed it
should be accepted, 2% of people between 30 and 49 and 7% of people over 50.
In May 2015, PlanetRomeo, an LGBT social network, published its first Gay Happiness
Index (GHI). Gay men from over 120 countries were asked about how they feel about
society's view on homosexuality, how do they experience the way they are treated by other
people and how satisfied are they with their lives. Uganda was ranked last with a GHI score
of 20.
A poll carried out by ILGA found attitudes towards LGBT people had significantly changed
by 2017: 59% of Ugandans agreed that gay, lesbian and bisexual people should enjoy the
same rights as straight people, while 41% disagreed. Additionally, 56% agreed that they
should be protected from workplace discrimination. 54% of Ugandans, however, said that
people who are in same-sex relationships should be charged as criminals, while 34%
disagreed. As for transgender people, 60% agreed that they should have the same rights, 62%
believed they should be protected from employment discrimination and 53% believed they
should be allowed to change their legal gender. Additionally, according to that same poll, a
third of Ugandans would try to "change" a neighbour's sexual orientation if they discovered
they were gay.

The health effects of same-sex sexual behavior are many. The public, government, and
judiciary are being lead to believe that same-sex sexuality is a normal variant with
interactions and results equivalent to heterosexual sexuality. However, this position runs
contrary to professional literature and the track record of history.
By any repeatable measure, the percentage of the population identifying as gay, lesbian,
bisexual, or transgender (GLBT) is small. The United States Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) estimates that men having sex with men (MSM) comprise approximately
two percent of the population, or four percent of the U.S male population.1 The University of
Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center has conducted surveys regarding homosexuality
since the late 1980s and deems that approximately two percent of the U.S. population
identifies as either gay, lesbian, or bisexual.2 The 2006-2008 National Survey of Family
Growth conducted by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found that among
women ages 18 to 44, 3.5 percent identified as bisexual with 1.4 percent identifying as
homosexual, gay, or lesbian. Among men of the same age group, 1.7 percent claimed gay
identity with 1.1 percent identifying as bisexual.3
The question of the ultimate origin of sexual orientation is not yet definitively answered, but
there is very little evidence that anyone is inherently of alternative sexual orientation.
A 1993 scientific literature critique by Byne and Parsons in Archives of General Psychiatry
reviewed the major studies on the subject and found no evidence favoring sexual orientation
being either genetically or biologically determined.4
Researchers Friedman and Downey of Columbia University School of Medicine remarked,
“At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexuality is fixed and unmodifiable.
Neither assertion is true. . . . The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionist that
it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.”5
Dr. Francis S. Collins, current Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and former
director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, asserted that homosexuality “is
genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA” and that “whatever genes are involved
represent predispositions, not predeterminations . . .” 6 Predisposition is not destiny.
The 2008 American Psychological Association’s brochure Sexual Orientation &
Homosexuality: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding states, “There is no
consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a
heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the
possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual
orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual
orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and
nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about
their sexual orientation.”7
GLBT-oriented men and women may not choose their attractions, but, short of force, they do
choose their sex partners. From a national health perspective, the issue is not the origins of
homosexual or GLBT orientation, but the consequences of engaging in such sexual activity.
The negative health consequences of alternative sexuality are made more understandable by
first recognizing the nature of the sexual practices at issue. A 1979 survey in the book The
Gay Report revealed the percentage of gay men who engaged in the following practices: 99%
oral sex, 91% anal sex, 82% rimming (analingus), 22% fisting, 23% golden showers
(urination on another), 4% scat (defecation on another). 8 The book’s two authors were of
same-sex sexual attraction. A May 2011 medical journal article found that felching (“sucking
or eating semen out of someone's anus”) was a sought-after practice in one-sixth of men’s
profiles in “one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for
partners for unprotected sex.”9
The Gay Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site describes the following detrimental
effects associated with same-sex sexual practice: higher rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse,
depression/anxiety, hepatitis, sexually transmitted illnesses (anal papilloma/HPV, gonorrhea,
syphilis, and chlamydia), certain cancers, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, eating disorders, and (in
subsets) obesity.10
In February 2009 a Canadian GLBT group filed a human rights complaint against the
Canadian government and Health Canada asserting that the Canadian GLBT population had
poor statistics for life expectancy (twenty years short of standard), suicide, alcohol and illicit
drug/substance abuse, cancer, infectious disease, HIV/AIDS, and depression. This is
noteworthy in that it challenges the assertion of those claiming the negative health statistics
attributed to individuals of GLBT orientation are merely a function of the lack of acceptance
of such individuals, and that said statistics would improve with their increased acceptance.
Canada provides a highly supportive government, celebration from liberal churches, and a
public coerced into silence by hate speech codes, yet the poor health indicators for the GLBT
populace remains. This demonstrates that acceptance and affirmation of same-sex sexuality is
not the promised antidote for the problems inherent in GLBT sexuality.
To reiterate, The Gay Report, the Gay Lesbian Medical Association, and the Canadian GLBT
coalition’s human rights complaint are sources from within the GLBT population.
REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCY
Dr. J. Satinover documents that homosexuals lose twenty-five to thirty years of their lifespan.
Gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections,
enteric infections and disease, cancers, alcoholism, suicide, and numerous other causes are
listed. 11
A 1997 Canadian study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology noted that in
urban gay areas, homosexual men had a life expectancy comparable to that in Canada in the
1870s. The researchers concluded, “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20
years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”12
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS/DISEASES (STIs or STDs)
Data presented at the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National STD
Prevention Conference showed the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with
men (MSM) was over 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The
rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM was over 46 times that of other men and
more than 71 times that of women.13
Furthermore, a study discussed at the International AIDS conference in 2000 documented
that sixteen percent of HIV-positive gay men in a nationwide sampling in the United States
admitted to at least one incidence of unprotected intercourse with an unaware partner.14
The CDC also warns on their Viral Hepatitis Scientific Information - Populations at Risk web
page, “Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for certain sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis,
gonorrhea, and Chlamydia . . . Approximately 15%–25% of all new Hepatitis B virus (HBV)
infections in the United States are among MSM.”15
The CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention reported in April 2011 that, “The sexual health
of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States is not
getting better despite considerable social, political and human rights advances. Instead of
improving, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain disproportionately high
among MSM and have been increasing for almost two decades.”16
A study in a 1999 edition of the American Journal of Public Health found that bisexual
women were more likely than heterosexual women “to report drug use in the 3 months before
the study, a greater lifetime number of male partners, a sex partner who had had sex with a
prostitute, an earlier age at sexual debut, and forced sexual contact,” and concluded, “Health
workers should be aware of bisexual experience among women, since this may be a marker
for multiple risk behaviors for HIV/STDs.”17
A 2000 study in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections asserted that women who have
sex with women (WSW) had higher rates of bacterial vaginosis, hepatitis C, and HIV risk
behaviors (specified as “more likely to report previous sexual contact with a homo/bisexual
man . . . or with an injecting drug user . . .”) than the heterosexual control group.18
These sources demonstrate that GLBT individuals not only have higher positivity rates of
STIs and HIV, but do not always inform their sexual partners of the presence of such, and
that some of their sexual partners could still be of the opposite sex despite a self-
identification as same-sex attracted. STIs among GLBT persons are not exclusively a GLBT
problem, but can affect the population at large.
CANCER
A 2011 study published in the journal Cancer found gay men demonstrating 1.9 times the
odds of reporting a cancer than heterosexual men, while “. . .lesbian and bisexual female
cancer survivors had 2.0 and 2.3× the odds of reporting fair or poor health compared with
heterosexual female cancer survivors.” 19 In a related interview, lead researcher Dr. Boehmer
specified that said cancers were both AIDSassociated and non-AIDS defining. Examples of
the latter were given as, “anal, lung, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”20
The American Cancer Society’s web page Cancer Facts for Gay and Bisexual Men specifies
that gay men are at increased risk for lung, testicular, colon, and anal cancers.21 Their web
page Cancer Facts for Lesbians and Bisexual Women indicates this population finds an
increased risk of breast, lung, colon, ovarian, and endometrial cancers.22 For both the groups
listed, the risk factors are described as stemming in part from higher rates of tobacco use,
alcohol use, and being overweight. For breast and gynecologic malignancies, the Cancer
Facts for Lesbians and Bisexual Women page clarifies, “Women who have not had children
and have not breast-fed, have not used oral contraceptives, and are older when they first give
birth – all factors more likely to affect lesbians and bisexual women – are also at a slightly
higher risk.”
The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site features the page Ten Things
Lesbians Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider, which states the following:
“Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of
women in the world.” And “Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic
cancers.”23
The GLMA’s web page Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Healthcare Provider
warns, “Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer.” It also
notes, “. . . the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.”24
MENTAL HEALTH
The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS) asserted, “people
with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.” Mood disorders,
anxiety, having more than one psychiatric diagnosis, and substance use disorders were
specified. 25
A 1999 New Zealand Study found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people were at
increased risk for suicidal behavior and ideation, major depression, generalized anxiety
disorder, conduct disorder, tobacco dependence, and multiple disorders compared to the
heterosexual subsample.26 The study also reported a prevalence rate of two percent for
homosexuality/bisexuality, 2.8 percent if counting any same-sex encounter after sixteen years
of age.
A 1999 co-twin control study in adult men, “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” showed
same-sex sexual orientation was significantly associated with four measures of suicidality
(thoughts about death, wanting to die, thoughts of suicide, and attempt). After adjustment for
substance abuse and depressive symptoms, three of four measures (except “wanting to die”)
remained higher in same-sex attracted people than heterosexuals.27
A 2001 study came to similar conclusions: “Homosexual orientation, defined as having same-
sex sexual partners, is associated with a general elevation of risk for anxiety, mood, and
substance use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and plans.”28
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence is higher in same-sex relationships. In 2004, with a 50,000 U.S. dollar
grant from the Blue Shield of California Foundation, the Gay and Lesbian Medical
Association launched the "LGBT Relationship Violence Project" to educate medical
professionals about the high rate of domestic violence in those communities. "The Blue
Shield of California Foundation recognizes that little attention has been paid to domestic
violence in LGBT contexts..." said Marianne Balin, manager of the Blue Shield of California
Foundation's anti-violence program. 29
In 1993 a Boston program for gay-bashing victims noted that half the calls they received
regarded domestic violence. Same-sex-couple domestic violence is called “the second
closet,” and has been a taboo subject for conversation. “In a sexual minority, there’s always
resistance to airing dirty laundry,” reported Terry Person, director of San Francisco’s
Community United Against Violence. 30
One might assume said violence is mainly a male-on-male phenomenon, but the literature
refutes this. The Journal of Social Service Research in 1991 published a survey of more than
1,100 lesbians with over half reporting, “they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The
most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/ psychological abuse and
combined physical-psychological abuse.”31
A 1994 study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology reported that 37% of
lesbians had been physically abused as adults or children, and 32% were either raped or
sexually battered. 32
YOUTH AT RISK The CDC reported on June 6, 2011 the findings of the 2001-2009 Youth
Risk Behavior Surveys, which revealed, “gay or lesbian students had higher rates for seven of
the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to
attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight
management).”33
In conclusion, we see a substantial body of scientific literature repeatedly confirming that
same-sex sexual behavior carriers with it increased rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse,
alcohol abuse, tobacco use, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, suicidality, obesity,
hepatitis of various forms, numerous sexually transmitted infections, various cancers, and
domestic violence, with substantially shorter life expectancy. The infectious disease problems
cross over to the heterosexual population through multiple avenues addressed in the sexually
transmitted infections section of this testimony.
Though people generally do not choose their sexual orientation, they do choose the people
with whom they have intercourse, save for cases of coercion or violence. One’s sexual
orientation will not protect one from the consequences of same-sex sexual behavior, and
those consequences can and do affect the population at large. Increased societal acceptance of
same-sex sexuality has not thus far proved helpful in reducing the negative health
consequences of those sexual practices.
Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are
predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so
as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred,
harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical
literature.
Behavioral consequences exist and the results are not the same for all sexual behaviors.
Technology cannot correct this and blame shifting the negative results of same-sex sexual
practice is misguided. Encouragement, let alone celebration, of same-sex sexuality is not a
benign mistake, as the record of the health statistics of those practicing GLBT sexuality
demonstrates.
If the current trend continues we shall be headed to a very treacherous path
General Objective.
The general objective is to assess the impact of the Ugandan law on the activities of the
lgbtq+ community activities in Uganda.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
We intend;
1. To find out if LGBTQ+ activities actually happen in Uganda.
2. To asses how our current laws have worked about the spread of LGBTQ+ activities in
Uganda.
3. To suggest solutions to the negative impacts of the growing LGBTQ+ community in
Uganda
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.
1. What do you feel about the new growing rise in LGBTQ+ activities in Uganda.
2. Have our laws and policies been effective in preventing the spread of LGBTQ+
activities in Uganda.
3. What should be the solutions to this problem.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY.
SUBJECT SCOPE.
This study will cover the impact The general objective is to assess the impact of the Ugandan
law on the activities of the lgbtq+ community activities in Uganda, since there are many
instances of continued LGBTQ+ activities in Uganda. The research will strive to unpack the
LGBTQ+ paradox with an indepth analysis that will provide a conclusion that will come up
with well informed recommendations that will provide solutions to the exixting problems
caused by the continued increase in the activities despite the loud public dismay.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE.
The study will be carried out in Kampala city as most of the LGBTQ+ activities majorly
happen in Kampala and it’s the area with most people that have access to the internet and
satellite Television.
TIME SCOPE.
The research will cover two months from February 2023 to March 2023.
JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY.
The justification is premised on the fact that the LGBTQ+ community activities have greatly
increased in the past few years and they not only threaten the morality of Ugandans but risk
to severly affect our survival. Though many people hear about gay activities few of them
know what they actually are and how grave their effects they carry are. This study will
therefore make known to people the different impacts of LGBTQ+ activities and how our law
is providing no distinct solution to this problem.
Significance of the study.
The study will allow a close inspection of the difficulty in legally fighting and prosecuting
perpetrators of spreading the vise, but also shine a light on how Ugandan law has proven
blind, unconcerned and at times ignored this deadly vice.
The study will also rebound the benefit of morality and how it affects effective deterrence
laws in society Uganda in particular
The study will be part of the Literature impact on our laws and the fight against the spread of
LGBTQ+ activities and further researchers will rely on the different data analysis that this
research will provide
The study will also provide unavailable knowledge that this has been feared and rarely
engaged.