Replies

In the 1980s, more than 30% of Ugandan residents had HIV; this had fallen to 6.4% by the end of 2008, the most effective national response to AIDS of any African country.[63] This is supported by the findings of a 2006 study that modern contraceptive use in Uganda is low. [ . . .]In 2009, the Ugandan parliament considered an Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would have broadened the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, or are HIV-positive, and engage in same-sex sexual acts.

From Wikipedia entry on Uganda

Based on the above, the actual law is designed to focus on cutting the spread of the disease. In any event, homosexual behavior and sodomy in general are filthy, immoral and unhealthy acts. Prophylactics alone, even if they were used so much, would not put much of a dent in spread of the disease because the breakage rate when used in that manner is so high (30-50%).

If the law is enforced in such a way that a mere appearance of effeminacy or lewdness gets the penalty, then that would be an issue. Uganda is known for corruption, and the president's contrition won't change the whole society.

But no, criminalization of sodomy, something that was upheld by SCOTUS as recently as the '80s, before O'Connor reversed herself, is the normal way for civilized countries, at least in western civilization. The severity of the penalty would vary depending on circumstances, in the same way that stealing a man's horse was once a hanging offense in certain parts of this country for a long time. Uganda's death penalty for sodomy can easily be justified on a natural law level given the circumstances.