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 small point first. “Imply” means to indicate by inference, association, or necessary inference. Saying that I “recall X” from a news story doesn’t involve implication. It is a direct statement of a proposition.
Now, as for the more important issue, I didn’t realize (note, I am not implying ;-) that the proposed law had a provision that gave 7 years for aiding and abetting homosexuality or that in some circumstances there are provisions for life sentences.
By the way, I was not intending to “imply” that you were in favor of sodomite child rape or spreading AIDS.