While homophobia is real in Kenya, and that the gay community is in mortal danger, the issue has recently taken a different turn. After seemingly being in denial about the extent of gay culture, there appears to be a realisation that gays do indeed exist in Kenya, and that they need to be acknowledged.

The announcement by the National Aids/STI Control Programmes (Nascop) this week that it will conduct a census of gay people may indicate a change of tack when dealing with issues of homosexuality.

The argument by the director of Nascop, Dr Nicholas Muraguri, that gay people are "part of our lives" and that "Kenyans cannot actually afford to say that the gay community is isolated somewhere in the corner" resonates with the idea that Kenya has a gay community whose needs and rights must be respected.

The wedding in London of two Kenyan men, Charles Ngengi and Daniel Chege Gichia, saw bigoted opprobrium thrown at homosexuals, and the rise of homophobia. While Kenyans sometimes seem tolerant of ‘otherness’—difference mostly of culture — sexual orientation, and particularly homosexuality, seems to evoke strong emotions and sentiments from moralising individuals and institutions.

Academics have long-argued that difference engages feelings, attitudes and emotions and mobilises fears and anxieties. In this sense, media scholar Stuart Hall holds that difference can be a site of danger, of negative feelings, of splitting, hostility and aggression towards the ‘others’. In our fascination with difference, and gayism in particular, many of us seem revolted by the mere idea that people of the same sex can be attracted to each other, and that, consenting and rational individuals, can engage in ‘legitimate’ sexual activity.

Although there are arguments that the development of gay characteristics is by nurture and not nature, some experiments have disproved this notion, revealing that people sometimes start exhibiting gay tendencies when quite young. In one such experiment, young twin boys exhibited different gender traits: While one was all macho, the other exhibited feminine characteristics and indeed grew up to become a homosexual.

Even if one case may not be used to draw valid generalisations, there is indeed evidence to show that some children are actually born gay, and that it is only a matter of time before they come out of the closet. Even if they don’t, it’s because they want to conform, that they seek to be accepted into a society that does not tolerate difference, and particularly sexual difference.

In other instances, people live a lie, preferring to lie in the closet for fear of repercussions from a society that is intolerant of such ‘unnatural’ acts. The latter perhaps informs the reason why homosexuality is illegal in Kenya.

Thus, whilst the census may be well meaning, and legitimately intended to find ways of aiding the fight against Aids, there are fears that this may in fact expose them to mortal danger particularly because some dogmatic moral police may seek to eliminate this ‘foreign and unacceptable behaviour’ from our society.

What is more, this may be seen as a way of psychological profiling because gayism has been criminalised even when it is clear that the gay community has some of the most harmless and friendly people. Although I have never met anybody who is openly gay in Kenya, there is enough evidence to indicate that the country has a sizeable number of gays, and as such their rights should be acknowledged and respected.

However, given the hostile and homophobic environment we live in, Nascop would find it difficult to convince the gay community that they ought to come out, and that they need to make meaningful contribution to the battle against Aids.

Accordingly, until those fears are assuaged, and until homophobia is eradicated, and people learn to respect others’ rights, asking people to reveal their ‘queer’ sexually orientation is like asking them to self-convict given the fact that homosexuality is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.