I’ll take your last point first, I whole-heartedly agree that African states have no business legislating morality by any means. Least of all them, when they can’t even legislate their own moral shortcomings.

There are far bigger social injustices in Africa to deal with that threaten the social fabric than being gay. Specifically targeting a minority population with capital punishment for a lifestyle that harms NO ONE is criminal!

My point in making is that this issue is as simple as it is complex. From a global perspective, our Western counterparts are dealing with the last remaining vestiges of homosexuality. It’s socially acceptable now on a majority scale, but not without dissenting minority. There will always be a dissenting minority, it’s a given.

As with racial issues, so too will the sexuality/human rights/donor interference go through its normal course. It’s not going to be a magic bullet of understanding that solves this.

However, a constructive dialogue driven by the Diaspora will go a long way in sensitizing African leadership. Better yet, let’s be those leaders, by wrestling leadership from the old guard.

Its a new day in the world, and if we are expected to grow up and play with the global leaders on every pitch… then we need to put our best weapons in position to score!

Thanks for your comment. Sorry about the system delays in posting it. I’ve been having some issues with Intense Debate randomly deleting or hiding comments.

Yes Africa’s nation-states are still young but we are forced to deal with grown up issues.

As I think about this issue further, the more I think that we seriously need more leadership from the Diaspora. Who better with experience on global issues and best practices to actually advice on how to navigate changing cultural dynamics.

But I disagree in pushing this to the level of genocide and comparing it to the plight of millions of Jews. I think that’s irresponsible and denigrates the very real failure in humanity that was the holocaust.

Yes, it is a social injustice, but the holocaust it’s not. Darfur it’s not. Rwanda it’s not.

Let’s keep the dialog on-point, and find ways to replace backward leadership that permeates the ranks of Africa’s young states. Let’s put there relevant, globally-aware leadership with can bridge the divide between a grown-up world, and the struggling infant that is Africa today.

But I do support GLBT people in Africa and denounce the Americans who encouraged the Uganda government's current attempt at genocide.

Yes, I call it genocide.

Because it's identical to what Hitler did to the Jews–first rounding them up and then persecuting Germans who didn't turn them in…

So I follow the lead of Kenyans and Ugandans who are gay or lesbian or who support GLBT rights, and do as they ask rather than do what I think they should do.

You, on the other hand, need to understand the gravity of the Uganda policy. It's one thing to set social policy. It's a whole other thing to execute people because they're different from you.

As Nekessa said, it's not an overreaction. It's murder.

For a second let us consider interracial marriages in the US, or post Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement. Americans, least of all white Americans were not ready for this change. Long after laws were enacted to protect the rights of minorities in the US, racism still continues because there are people who still hold those sentiments from the past. Consider, in many African countries child slavery/labor/abuse and gender violence/discrimination. We know that these practices are rife, even in some cases protected by law (In Cameroon a man who rapes a woman is free from conviction should he marry her?). Yet, we advocate for the rights of women and children, and rightly so. But now we argue an infantile African state in issues of gay rights? Isn't this an inconsistent argument? To argue that we should give Uganda, and other African countries time to figure out their moral compass is to give in to a tyranny of the majority.

Morality is forever shifting, and it is not the government's responsibility to make law a morality code.

There is no arguing that gay issues in Uganda, Kenya, etc are still going to be controversial issues, but that does not mean that the state should participate in persecuting them.

And you cannot call protesting the death penalty on gays and their allies an overreaction.

For a second let us consider interracial marriages in the US, or post Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement. Americans, least of all white Americans were not ready for this change. Long after laws were enacted to protect the rights of minorities in the US, racism still continues because there are people who still hold those sentiments from the past. Consider, in many African countries child slavery/labor/abuse and gender violence/discrimination. We know that these practices are rife, even in some cases protected by law (In Cameroon a man who rapes a woman is free from conviction should he marry her?). Yet, we advocate for the rights of women and children, and rightly so. But now we argue an infantile African state in issues of gay rights? Isn't this an inconsistent argument? To argue that we should give Uganda, and other African countries time to figure out their moral compass is to give in to a tyranny of the majority.

Morality is forever shifting, and it is not the government's responsibility to make law a morality code.

There is no arguing that gay issues in Uganda, Kenya, etc are still going to be controversial issues, but that does not mean that the state should participate in persecuting them.

And you cannot call protesting the death penalty on gays and their allies an overreaction.

There is something to be said about rewarding countries with aid for good governance/ human rights. I will be the first one to argue against unequal aid and trade practices (and this goes beyond the global South vs North.) Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that larger economies determine the terms of trade or aid. This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it. But this argument is neither here nor there.

For a second let us consider interracial marriages in the US, or post Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement. Americans, least of all white Americans were not ready for this change. Long after laws were enacted to protect the rights of minorities in the US, racism still continues because there are people who still hold those sentiments from the past. Consider, in many African countries child slavery/labor/abuse and gender violence/discrimination. We know that these practices are rife, even in some cases protected by law (In Cameroon a man who rapes a woman is free from conviction should he marry her?). Yet, we advocate for the rights of women and children, and rightly so. But now we argue an infantile African state in issues of gay rights? Isn't this an inconsistent argument? To argue that we should give Uganda, and other African countries time to figure out their moral compass is to give in to a tyranny of the majority.

Morality is forever shifting, and it is not the government's responsibility to make law a morality code.

There is no arguing that gay issues in Uganda, Kenya, etc are still going to be controversial issues, but that does not mean that the state should participate in persecuting them.

And you cannot call protesting the death penalty on gays and their allies an overreaction.

There is something to be said about rewarding countries with aid for good governance/ human rights. I will be the first one to argue against unequal aid and trade practices (and this goes beyond the global South vs North.) Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that larger economies determine the terms of trade or aid. This doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it. But this argument is neither here nor there.

For a second let us consider interracial marriages in the US, or post Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement. Americans, least of all white Americans were not ready for this change. Long after laws were enacted to protect the rights of minorities in the US, racism still continues because there are people who still hold those sentiments from the past. Consider, in many African countries child slavery/labor/abuse and gender violence/discrimination. We know that these practices are rife, even in some cases protected by law (In Cameroon a man who rapes a woman is free from conviction should he marry her?). Yet, we advocate for the rights of women and children, and rightly so. But now we argue an infantile African state in issues of gay rights? Isn't this an inconsistent argument? To argue that we should give Uganda, and other African countries time to figure out their moral compass is to give in to a tyranny of the majority.

Morality is forever shifting, and it is not the government's responsibility to make law a morality code.

There is no arguing that gay issues in Uganda, Kenya, etc are still going to be controversial issues, but that does not mean that the state should participate in persecuting them.

And you cannot call protesting the death penalty on gays and their allies an overreaction.

That being said, I am dismayed that you want "Africa" to have the luxury to figure out "these" issues as Western countries have (and they haven't). Africans are not always the victims we make ourselves out to be. Let's forget about gay issues for a minute, and think about women and children's rights. Are you also saying that we should give "Africa" time to come around on child labor/slavery, early child marriage, violence against women? Did you know that for example, if a woman is raped in Cameroon, her rapist can escape persecution by marrying her? Extreme examples I know, but so is the Ugandan death penalty on gay Ugandans and allies.

Also you reference marriage laws in the US. Remember that when the Supreme Court made the ruling in 1967, many Americans were not ready to accept interracial relationships. The end of Jim Crow laws in the US is another example: white Americans were not ready/ did not want to interact with Blacks and other peoples of color.

Isms are illegal in many parts of the world, and have little to do with the general attitude of the population. What you are arguing for is the tyranny of the majority.

Second of all, the idea of "young" African countries – In theory, it is true. On the other hand, if African countries do not catch up the level of democratic engagement in many Western countries, their chances of evolving in tandem with these countries is limited. You will always be behind or falling behind. Therefore, Africa is faced with a double-burden of being "young," but also of having to develop its own standards for development that are compatible with the big markets they need to enter. China figured it out. So can Uganda.

Lastly, in a sense, I agree that independent countries should be guided by the citizens within them and not by the moral dilemmas that aid organizations face in bilateral agreements. However, I think equal parts support from those aid agencies sustaining governments like Uganda and the will of the people (clearly strong in Uganda on all issues from gay rights to women's rights) is a good formula. This means pressure on several sides and therefore a chance of greater success.

Frankly, I am getting a big tired of all these arguments blaming everything on aid and development. The world is not as black and white as this. We are having this argument because people previously perceived it to be so. Here is a particular case where nuances are needed in the debate and blanket statements do make caricatures (thanks @cbracy). Development has been around since before the 18th century in many shapes and forms. It's not going anywhere so instead of laying the developing world's problems on its feet (hrm, just as you did with colonialism), perhaps we can think of brighter arguments that combine the talents of development organizations with the sustainability of the corporate sector, just as we can understand that colonialism helped build the middle class that now rallies against anti-homosexual laws.