You could poll a San Francisco bathhouse on Glory Hole Night and not register a 99.99999% approval of homosexuality.
Why would you think that?
I was curious about the 99.99999% figure too, so I did a little math.
I found a stat of ‘65.4 million’ for the population of France. If every one of them were asked about accepting homosexuality, 7 answered no, and all the others answered yes, that’d be a 99.9999894% approval rate.
I’d say 1 in 10 million is far below the ‘jackass who’ll tell anybody with a clipboard something stupid just to piss them off’ margin, no matter how obvious the ‘right’ answer to the question is.
Bryan: you just might do better, if the bathhouse attendance is low enough that you can get a unanimous approval. Otherwise no.
Interesting that on that link France experienced the steepest drop in approval of any country, right down there with the Palestinian Territories, Turkey, Russia, and Jordan. I wonder why the difference? Just about every other Western country is simultaneously becoming more tolerant of homosexuality.
Conservative white Christian nationalism never went away. Its forms and influence seems to wax and wane.
Well, if the actual number in France was 80%, we would expect polls (even polls taken the same day) to range from 76.4 to 83.6, given a range of ±3.6. There’s not enough evidence to conclude acceptance in France has dropped, assuming the 3.6% range applies to both the 2007 and 2013 surveys.
The Canadian numbers suggest a statistically significant increase, though.
Don’t the French have the exact same stereotype about Englishmen?
I think that’s mostly immigration. France has been getting large numbers of North African immigrants who tend to be homophobic in their attitudes.
That’s not a convincing explanation, really, in light of the Canadian numbers. Canada’s immigration rate is much higher than France’s - it is one of the highest in the world - and Canada’s percentage of population born abroad is much higher. High immigration is official national policy, and most of the immigrants come from countries that do not have admirable histories of treating gay people well.
Really, Canada 80%, France 77%, both excellent scores and within a close enough margin that the difference does not raise any eyebrows with me.
Y’know, it’s all fine to expect more from our various “advanced” Western societies and to keep our eye on the goal, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. As things are, on this particular issue the rate of social evolution in my lifetime HAS been impressive. I would not be surprised if for the first few years of my life you would not have found one simple-majority score.
How would it be a reasonable realistic expectation that ANY national society would have already arrived at 99% as of 1/1/2014?
Which reiterates how when dealing with real living, breathing humans, as opposed to archetypes who are always utterly consistent, being “liberal” or “conservative” on issue A does not result automatically in holding that particular ideology’s ostensible position on another issue. Especially in societies with a pluripartidist tradition where you do not have to line up along a duality of libs v. cons, you can have for example people who are gay atheist anti-immigrant nationalists and they will not feel they “are doing it wrong”.
That’s a good and interesting point. However, one might note as I mentioned before that France has had a number of high-profile riots among precisely this immigrant population – north Africans and Muslims in particular – and one might ask why such things tend not to happen in Canada. I think part of the answer is that in Canada these people are more socially integrated, whereas in France many of them are (as I said earlier) ghettofied and shunned. Thus one might posit that in Canada they are more likely to adapt to prevailing societal norms. Also in support of the immigration theory about France, I noticed in some figures for recent years that around 22% of all non-European immigrants there are from Morocco and Algeria, and the top 8 countries of origin accounting for almost half of all immigrants are third-world countries with pretty backwards social values. And one wonders how well they are screened; most non-refugee immigrants admitted to Canada are educated and job-qualified, and don’t end up clustered together in ghettos. But I’m basically just throwing out some ideas here – don’t really have a lot of hard numbers.
I would assume there’s a lot of truth here. Canada has ethnic enclaves to be sure; in parts of Markham the standard language of business is Mandarin, not English. However, it’s a much more integrated and mobile population; the norm seems to be to move into an immigrant community in Toronto and then within ten years buy a house in the 'burbs and enrol your kids in the local hockey league. It may simply be that we have so many immigrants we can’t ghettoize them, and certainly here there is a very different notion of what constitutes citizenship and the social contract than what exists in the Old World.
But that just kind of goes to my point which is that it’s clearly not the origin of the immigrants, it’s the society around them that matters. Canada is getting plenty of immigrants from Muslim countries, and our #1 source country now is the Philippines, a hard-core Catholic country. But this doesn’t seem to translate into increased opposition to gay marriage, even though it’s obvious many folks come over with conservative, religiously determined social values.
I think this goes to the point JRDelirious makes, which is that real human beings aren’t easily placed on a simple one-dimensional political scale. It may simply be that Canadian immigrants see major political issues as faits accompli and don’t choose to rock the boat, I don’t know.
This. Each time something gay or gay-related comes up in france, it’s this population you see all up in arms.
I would also question the underlying premise that a culture that is liberal about a wider variety of heterosexual relationships would also be more liberal about homosexual relationships. I’ve certainly known individuals who embraced liberal ideas about the one but not about the other (in both directions, come to think about it).
Yes they do, which is presumably a by-product of being at each other’s throats for about 1000 years. If you constantly going to battle with each other, then branding the enemy as effeminate is a handy bit of chest beating for the troops.
Yup, and yet all the while we have a concurrent stereotype of the frenchman being a womanising lothario and serial adulterer. And they have a concurrent stereotype of us as thuggish yobs.
It doesn’t have to be true or consistent, it just has to be insulting.
Obviously I was joking to make a point. It’s called hyperbole;).
Anyways, as this discussion is practically dead, I want to submit another point. Back to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.. It confuses me a little, that this doesn’t make a bigger impact, I mean. “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else”? Wouldn’t a Frenchman against this be like an American against the First Amendment? I mean, even Muslims in the USA are for the First Amendment, aren’t they? (For this reason, I would expect the percentage to be like 89% [there, you got an estimate from me:)].)
Quite.
And how many debates go on in the US over what the first amendment means and what it covers and doesn’t?
48 of 50 states once had statutes criminalizing flag-burning. What does that tell you about support for the First Amendment?