The Africans can be taught about the affects of AIDS, how it is contracted and preventative measures. Central to this education is endorsing the need for abstinence and the primacy of abstinence.
I'm not going to give factual evidence for something that is a matter of common sense. More condoms invites more sex = promiscuity. How is that untruth?
Less sex = Africans upholding their Christian obligations = Good
Much sex = Africans disregarding their Christian obligations = Bad.
Abstinence has nothing to do with this what so ever, and if Christianity can be taken out of the mix, all the better, because it is obviously the indirect cause of the mass loss of lives. Chuck condoms on and everything is fixed. Everyone still gets to have sex, noone contracts aids by sexual intercourse, and there is no need for discriminatory legislation that effectively makes it punishable by death for being attracted to the same sex.
And i still dont see how condoms promote promiscuity, please provide evidence
This right is not a universal human right. Who are we as Westerners to tell Ugandan's which laws they can and cannot legislate?
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." -Article 2
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."-Article 3
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."-Article 7
Do i need to continue to show how many articles of the UDHR this legislation walks all over?
Nothing has clicked because there is nothing that justifies a click. My point was that religion is not inherently evil and it does not cause wars. It doesn't justify them. They may me abused by pernicious individuals in order to sate their agendas but that doesn't make them evil.
For instance, a cricket bat isn't a weapon because it is used as such. Similarly, religion is not a weapon because it is abused as such.
My point is that you're using religion to your own ends.
You're agreeing with parts of this legislation. Your religion promotes love and peace for EVERYONE, yet you endorse the killing that is happening/will happen (as you said in your first post). I dont understand