Skip to main content
Politics

Return to Question

Tweeted twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/718263342733910018
improved source of strong LGBT rights
Source Link
uuu
uuu
  • 700
  • 4
  • 20

first of all: it is a plain assumption thatto provide evidence about the population of south Africa doesn't want gaypopulations attitude towards LGBT rights. Unfortunately, i didn't found any statistics on that topic, therefore i don't can provide evidence.:

Although the Constitutional and legal system in South Africa theoretically ensure equality, social acceptance is generally lacking, especially outside of urban areas in the eastern half of the country. A 2008 survey found that 84% of South Africans said homosexual sexual behavior is always wrong, compared to 8% who said that it is not wrong at all.[38] In a 2013 survey, 61% said society should not accept homosexuality.[39]

However, i think my assumption may be legit, because of articles like thatAdditionally:

"Homosexuality is a taboo to us," he says. "I'll go back to African traditions, there's no word for that in our language."

I ask what would happen if one of his daughters told him she was a lesbian.

"I might kill her myself. That thing is unnatural, it's awkward, so I cannot accept something that is awkward in my house.

"If someone said choose between keeping this child or killing it, I would kill it."

His views reflect the gap between the law and the attitude of many South Africans. It shows that the government has failed to create a truly rainbow nation, say activists.

Given that the bold marked lineThat is true, whya very strong contrast to the strong laws in favor for LGBT rights. Hence my question:

Why had the south African government implemented gay right lawsthose rights, which are the exact opposition to a big part, if not the majority of the south African population? Don't get me wrong, I love LGBT rights, but i don't understand this in terms of democracy: If the population is against LGBT rights, but the government implements exactly that, democracy has failed.

Given that LGBT rights are extremely against the attitudes of the populationTherefore, it makes no sense at all to implement that for the government (e.g. to have an appearance of a modern state), because they won't be elected again.

first of all: it is a plain assumption that the population of south Africa doesn't want gay rights. Unfortunately, i didn't found any statistics on that topic, therefore i don't can provide evidence.

However, i think my assumption may be legit, because of articles like that:

"Homosexuality is a taboo to us," he says. "I'll go back to African traditions, there's no word for that in our language."

I ask what would happen if one of his daughters told him she was a lesbian.

"I might kill her myself. That thing is unnatural, it's awkward, so I cannot accept something that is awkward in my house.

"If someone said choose between keeping this child or killing it, I would kill it."

His views reflect the gap between the law and the attitude of many South Africans. It shows that the government has failed to create a truly rainbow nation, say activists.

Given that the bold marked line is true, why had the south African government implemented gay right laws, which are the exact opposition to a big part, if not the majority of the south African population? Don't get me wrong, I love LGBT rights, but i don't understand this in terms of democracy: If the population is against LGBT rights, but the government implements exactly that, democracy has failed.

Given that LGBT rights are extremely against the attitudes of the population, it makes no sense at all to implement that for the government (e.g. to have an appearance of a modern state), because they won't be elected again.

to provide evidence about the populations attitude towards LGBT rights:

Although the Constitutional and legal system in South Africa theoretically ensure equality, social acceptance is generally lacking, especially outside of urban areas in the eastern half of the country. A 2008 survey found that 84% of South Africans said homosexual sexual behavior is always wrong, compared to 8% who said that it is not wrong at all.[38] In a 2013 survey, 61% said society should not accept homosexuality.[39]

Additionally:

"Homosexuality is a taboo to us," he says. "I'll go back to African traditions, there's no word for that in our language."

I ask what would happen if one of his daughters told him she was a lesbian.

"I might kill her myself. That thing is unnatural, it's awkward, so I cannot accept something that is awkward in my house.

"If someone said choose between keeping this child or killing it, I would kill it."

That is a very strong contrast to the strong laws in favor for LGBT rights. Hence my question:

Why had the south African government implemented those rights, which are the exact opposition to the majority of the south African population? Don't get me wrong, I love LGBT rights, but i don't understand this in terms of democracy: If the population is against LGBT rights, but the government implements exactly that, democracy has failed.

Therefore, it makes no sense at all to implement that for the government (e.g. to have an appearance of a modern state), because they won't be elected again.

Source Link
uuu
uuu
  • 700
  • 4
  • 20

why does south africa educate their population about gay rights, if the population itself doesn't want that?

first of all: it is a plain assumption that the population of south Africa doesn't want gay rights. Unfortunately, i didn't found any statistics on that topic, therefore i don't can provide evidence.

However, i think my assumption may be legit, because of articles like that:

"Homosexuality is a taboo to us," he says. "I'll go back to African traditions, there's no word for that in our language."

I ask what would happen if one of his daughters told him she was a lesbian.

"I might kill her myself. That thing is unnatural, it's awkward, so I cannot accept something that is awkward in my house.

"If someone said choose between keeping this child or killing it, I would kill it."

His views reflect the gap between the law and the attitude of many South Africans. It shows that the government has failed to create a truly rainbow nation, say activists.

Given that the bold marked line is true, why had the south African government implemented gay right laws, which are the exact opposition to a big part, if not the majority of the south African population? Don't get me wrong, I love LGBT rights, but i don't understand this in terms of democracy: If the population is against LGBT rights, but the government implements exactly that, democracy has failed.

Given that LGBT rights are extremely against the attitudes of the population, it makes no sense at all to implement that for the government (e.g. to have an appearance of a modern state), because they won't be elected again.