South Africa approves gay marriage-what now?

[atheist_infidel0304]

Just heard about South Africa, which is now under court order to allow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/#a011540 gay marriage after a law restricting it was tossed out.

--When a law is instituted allowing same-sex marriage, how specifically will this new provision "hurt" marriage?

--Will allowing same sex couples to marry harm heterosexuals?, if so, please explain how this is.

[Dilettante]

After thinking about it for a few hours, I do see one potentially undesirable effect that gay marriage could have. The hypothesis is: if the percentage of same-sex marriages one day became relatively high, it could make the traditional family model obsolete. It would also mean less kids (unless assisted reproduction became widespread) and a lot more old-age pensioners.

However, this scenario is unlikely, since homosexuality seems to have always been a minority orientation. I guess anything is possible, although it doesn't seem enough of a threat to make me want to stop same-sex marriage now.

[Cephus]

After thinking about it for a few hours, I do see one potentially undesirable effect that gay marriage could have. The hypothesis is: if the percentage of same-sex marriages one day became relatively high, it could make the traditional family model obsolete. It would also mean less kids (unless assisted reproduction became widespread) and a lot more old-age pensioners.

That's not anything likely to happen, given the very low percentage of homosexuals to begin with. Further, less kids isn't a bad thing, there's too many people on the planet already, and more old-age pensioners... you mean like the Baby Boomers? It's already here, nothing likely to change on that account.

Further, I'm not sure how 'traditional' family models could become obsolete when the majority of humans are heterosexual. If, by the term 'traditional', you mean one man and one woman, married for life, raising children within the marriage model, that's been obsolete for years and the homosexuals had nothing to do with it.

[youngborean]

You would be right if there were any arguments on the side of the anti-gay marriage issue that were based on facts.

This is just another example of how a fundamentalist on one side of the issue makes it impossible to discuss. The reason you support marriage is no more based on "facts" than the reason some don't support. It is based on your personal judgements of right and wrong.

The influence of faith on laws has nothing to do with the seperation of us from a theocracy. What you are suggesting is a society where the religious cannot have their perspective represented becuase their mechanism of obtaining their morality. This is dictatorial and undemocratic and it uses the fallacy that you are building it on a general principle of democracy (the seperation of church and state).

I would suggest that matters of public ethics (our laws for instance) should be based on objective criteria not subjective faith.

So what is the objective criteria that says a homosexual union should be called a marriage and not a union? As you said:

There is a societal recognition of legitimacy associated with the word "marriage".

The eforcement of societal recognition is based solely on the desire of one party and not objectivity. You claim that your position is objective has not been supported, you only use objectivity as you battlecry and as another polemic against people that don't agree with you.

[McCulloch]

You would be right if there were any arguments on the side of the anti-gay marriage issue that were based on facts.

This is just another example of how a fundamentalist on one side of the issue makes it impossible to discuss. The reason you support marriage is no more based on "facts" than the reason some don't support. It is based on your personal judgements of right and wrong.

No, given that there are no "facts" and that there are no objective reasons to restrict the term marriage exclusively to heterosexuals, I would allow each individual couple the freedom to make the choice. In the absence of facts and reason, I support liberty. In the absence of facts and reason, some Christians support restrictions.

The influence of faith on laws has nothing to do with the seperation of us from a theocracy. What you are suggesting is a society where the religious cannot have their perspective represented becuase their mechanism of obtaining their morality. This is dictatorial and undemocratic and it uses the fallacy that you are building it on a general principle of democracy (the seperation of church and state).

A properly running democracy should not be a tyranny of the majority. That is why we have legal systems to review our laws and Bills of Rights to protect minorities. The question for debate in this thread goes to what effect can the change in law which grants marital recognition to same-sex couples have on persons of faith. If you cannot demonstrate that the rights of any particular person of faith will be effected by this change in law, then how can you claim that the change is dictatorial and undemocratic? The rhetoric of the right-wing conservatives would lead one to believe that the change in law is forcing them to marry inappropriate partners.

I would suggest that matters of public ethics (our laws for instance) should be based on objective criteria not subjective faith.

So what is the objective criteria that says a homosexual union should be called a marriage and not a union? As you said:

There is a societal recognition of legitimacy associated with the word "marriage".

The enforcement of societal recognition is based solely on the desire of one party and not objectivity. You claim that your position is objective has not been supported, you only use objectivity as you battlecry and as another polemic against people that don't agree with you.

Because to deny same-sex couples the right to have the societal recognition implied by the word marriage simply because some but not all religionists say that they should not is a form of theocracy. You must have more than just your faith as a reason to place legal restrictions on those who disagree with your religion.

[youngborean]

No, given that there are no "facts" and that there are no objective reasons to restrict the term marriage exclusively to heterosexuals, I would allow each individual couple the freedom to make the choice.

The fact was simple. In Canada, marriage was defined as the union between a man and a woman. The supreme court threw out the Liberals desire to have it defined by the court, they were right in sending it back to parliment. Who voted to change the definition rather than make an equivalent term.

Because to deny same-sex couples the right to have the societal recognition implied by the word marriage simply because some but not all religionists say that they should not is a form of theocracy.

No it isn't. It would be a representation of the majority's morality and desired definition of a word (democracy) that could hardly be considered tryanny if a union (an equivalent word) was granted. Your use of "tryanny" only expresses your deep-seeded faith in your position in principle. It is based on a myraid of other assumptions, the major one being that groups defined by practice (homosexuals) should be specifically protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is your ethical stance, it is not based solely on facts and objectivity. This is a unique group that defines it's identity through practice alone. Gays had the right to marry before the definition was changed. So their marital rights were not being infringed upon in any way until the definition was first changed.

[McCulloch]

[T]o deny same-sex couples the right to have the societal recognition implied by the word marriage simply because some but not all religionists say that they should not is a form of theocracy.

No it isn't.

Why not?

It would be a representation of the majority's morality and desired definition of a word (democracy) that could hardly be considered tryanny if a union (an equivalent word) was granted.

Why is it that the right wishes to allow same-sex marriage just so long as they don't call it marriage? If it is equivalent to marriage, then call it marriage.

Your use of "tryanny" only expresses your deep-seeded faith in your position in principle. It is based on a myraid of other assumptions, the major one being that groups defined by practice (homosexuals) should be specifically protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And what would be some of the other of these myriad assumptions? OK, I happen to agree with the learned justices, the New Democrats and the majority of the Liberal party that homosexual rights are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is that a bad thing?

This is your ethical stance, it is not based solely on facts and objectivity.

That is the point of this thread. Show specifically and objectively why and how the expanded definition of the term marriage infringes on the rights of heterosexuals. Lacking such evidence, I will continue to support gay rights.

This is a unique group that defines it's identity through practice alone. Gays had the right to marry before the definition was changed. So their marital rights were not being infringed upon in any way until the definition was first changed.

So why are the small 'c' conservatives against changing the written legislation to agree with the Court's interpretation?

The questions for debate are,

--When a law is instituted allowing same-sex marriage, how specifically will this new provision "hurt" marriage?
--Will allowing same sex couples to marry harm heterosexuals?, if so, please explain how this is.

I have seen nothing in your posts which addresses either of these questions.

[micatala]

In a number of threads, the claim has been made that gay marriage has never been outlawed because it has never been legal. The implication seems to be that if something has always been illegal, it is not outlawed. This seesm to me to be a strange contention.

At any rate, since South Africa does provide an example where gay marriage is legal, we do have a partial refutation. It will be interesting to see if any place where gay marriage has been made legal will subsequently outlaw the practice.

[1John2_26]

Further, I'm not sure how 'traditional' family models could become obsolete when the majority of humans are heterosexual. If, by the term 'traditional', you mean one man and one woman, married for life, raising children within the marriage model, that's been obsolete for years and the homosexuals had nothing to do with it.

What had everything to do with it was the embracing of sexual promiscuity, hedonism and revising and changing morality and social norms.

Sound familar?

South Africa is a nation stained with the immorality of apartheid, wholesale rape of women and children, and AIDS.

Its politics are in keeping with its populace.

[micatala]

What had everything to do with it was the embracing of sexual promiscuity, hedonism and revising and changing morality and social norms.

Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that this is true.

The next question, is what to do about it. What measures can you point to that have been successful in diminishing promiscuity, or at least the deleterious effects of promiscuity? If one of these is 'sex within marriage', then why wouldn't we promote gay marriage as a way to diminish promiscuity? Even the Apostle Paul admitted that celibacy just does not work for everybody.

South Africa is a nation stained with the immorality of apartheid, wholesale rape of women and children, and AIDS.

Its politics are in keeping with its populace.

You do realize that there have been a number of very major regime changes in South Africa while all this has transpired, don't you?