The anti-homosexuality Christmas message promised by the Speaker of Uganda’s parliament to an expectant public in 2012 was one year late in coming but finally came in December 2013. In short it said: This is Uganda, not U-gay-nda. In its detailed construction, the message seeks to make it a punishable offence to condone, promote, or practice homosexuality in Uganda. Predictably, once the word was out, domestic praise and Western condemnation swept down in tandem upon the house of parliament. The domestic praise was founded on religious correctness, and the Western condemnation on political correctness; we shall found our analysis of the position on scientific correctness.
The religious cohort claims that its aversion to homosexuality is governed by the word of God as laid down in the holy books. To them we say we are likewise guided by the word of God—not as outlined in scripture but as inscribed by him at the time of creation in our genes and on the seat of instinct. The West tells us that its aversion to homosexuality laws is governed by the principle that sex between two (or more) consenting adults should lie beyond the reach of legislation. To them we say that ever since sexually transmitted diseases became a public health issue, sex between consenting adults ceased to be a private issue. For if we regard public health funding as a form of insurance, then the “insurer”—in this case parliament—has a responsibility to act against the kind of risky behaviour which lays its customers prone to the risks that they are insured against. So public debate should not dwell on whether or not parliament can legislate about purportedly private sexual matters; rather, it should dwell on the nature of that legislation—that is, whether the legislation should aim to control risky sexual behaviour by focusing on punishment or by focusing instead on education and on restricting the promotion of such behaviour. Therefore, on a platform of scientific correctness, we proceed on the stance that the word of God can more easily be discerned in our genes and instincts and that the control of sexual behaviour is one of those things which fall legitimately within the domain of parliamentary concerns.
Homosexuality has been variously described as genetically induced behaviour and as socially acquired behaviour. If it is genetically induced behaviour, then it is in the interests of a society that is averse to homosexuality to let homosexuals confine themselves to their sexual practices so that new homosexuals are not born. Moreover, we must bear it in mind that nature never acts in vain: if she saw it fit to write homosexual tendencies into human genes then it was meant either as a measure to prevent the propagation of certain undesirable genes carried by the homosexual population or as a practical measure to promote population control in a species that engages in massive recreational sex. Whatever the case, it is clear that if homosexuality is genetically induced behaviour, society is best served by letting homosexuals confine themselves to their sexual practices.
This debate also has implications for domestic peace: when we force people who are homosexuals (whether by learning or by genetics) into heterosexual relationships, their ungratified homosexual needs will ignite in them storms of frustration. They will deal with this frustration in one of two ways: either they will attack the system which exposed them to the frustration or, if they feel too weak to attack it, they will turn their wrath on vulnerable people whom they associate with that system. Psychologists call this latter reaction the displacement mechanism for dealing with frustration because the victim of frustration directs his wrath away from its source towards an easy target. In a romantic relationship, this easy target may be the spouse of the frustrated homosexual whom they associate with the heterosexual establishment and therefore stands in their eyes as a symbol of what they perceive as the heterosexuality monster. This means that many incidents of gender violence in heterosexual relationships may actually be cases of a repressed homosexual drive in one spouse expressing itself through displaced violence.
In conclusion, when we steer clear of political and religious correctness and stick only to scientific correctness, we come to find that while sexual orientation is a legitimate topic of public discussion and legislation, such discussion and legislation should not seek to impose heterosexuality on homosexuals. If homosexuality is proven to be injurious to the public good from the perspective of public health policy, then the way to proceed is to restrain the act by education and by restricting activities which may promote such a sexual orientation among the impressionable public.