“It is disingenuous to imply...”
First, “disingenuous” means insincere or lacking in candor. You aren’t in a position to know whether the comment was disingenuous. Second, I didn’t “imply” those things; I stated them expressly. Third, my comment was based on reading some news reports, not one of the versions of the proposed legislation, the legal status of any of which at this time I don’t know.
We agree that there is no reason for Ugandans to care what we think.
I disagree. You said:
As I recall, the Ugandan law calls for execution for sodomites who deliberately spread AIDS and sodomite child rape. The law doesn’t call for execution for sodomites in general.
What you said is pretty much true. However, the law does call for life imprisonment for "sodomites in general." So while EXECUTION may only be applied in the cases you specify, the law still PERTAINS to ordinary homosexual sex. You stated the former, but I thought you implied the opposite of the latter.
Maybe your comments weren't disingenuous. But some posters have made comments like yours to suggest that anyone who is is disturbed by the proposed Uganda law must be in favor of "spreading AIDS and sodomite child rape."
The law disturbs me not because it calls for executing those who intentionally spread HIV and those who have sex with minors. Those are horrible crimes that deserve severe punishment. The law disturbs me because it calls for life imprisonment for any and all homosexual activity, and 7 years imprisonment for "aiding and abetting homosexuality."
The news reports focus on the death penalty aspect for the shock value. They probably aren't doing themselves any favors by omitting facts if they're trying to stir up outrage. I find the section calling for life imprisonment for any and all homosexual sex far more outrageous than executing child abusers and those who spread HIV.