Gay marriages bill approved

[noxibox]

so if someone decides that he wants to be a nudist, he has the right to do so in terms of freedom of expression,

but in terms of laws against public indecency, which is defined as unlawfully, intentionally and publicly committing an act which tends to deprave the morals of others or which outrages the public’s sense of decency and propriety it would be illegal.

That person is then being blatantly discriminated against and could then rightly go to the constitutional court and claim that the legislation is unconstitutional and must be changed or rather that that common law principle not be applied in South Africa

The result of that would be that many sexual offences would have to go unprosecuted, despite the number of naked people walking around your office (look around you and think about it before you say good idea )

Common decency is a malleable term. If a nudist could actually make a case that it constitutes free expression that should be allowed any time, any place then so be it.

What sexual offences would go unprosecuted?

Dress codes are a contractual matter. You might be able to go to work naked, but you'd have to change into whatever constitutes work clothes once you're there.

My point is that just because the constitutional court, purely on the basis of the constitution and the legislation before it, deems it to be one way, does not mean that it is morally the correct position to take.

Are bigotry and discrimination morally correct? No-one, including the author of the linked article, has actually presented a single valid reason for declaring marriage to have anything inherently to do with a heterosexual partnership. Marriage definitely doesn't exist purely for procreation.

BTW - AFAIK common law against sodomy and bestiality is still applied in terms of our law

Surely they fixed the law on sodomy when they stripped out things like oral sex, and other 'unnatural' acts. Or is that stupid sex acts law still on the books?

Bestiality is deemed animal abuse.

 

[Claymore]

correct me if I am wrong, but the leading religions in the country

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
African Religions
Judaism

all say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore the majority of people should be against gay marriages - will of the people

just my 2c worth

Most of those religions supported slavery. Should we then permit slavery?

 

[xtermin8or]

What sexual offences would go unprosecuted?

many of the charges sexual predators and deviants face includes priciples of common law, if we start chipping away at common law, where will it end

Dress codes are a contractual matter. You might be able to go to work naked, but you'd have to change into whatever constitutes work clothes once you're there.

No, he would then argue that the dress code is unconstitutional and can therefore not be enforced, and he has the concourt ruling to defend this

Are bigotry and discrimination morally correct? No-one, including the author of the linked article, has actually presented a single valid reason for declaring marriage to have anything inherently to do with a heterosexual partnership. Marriage definitely doesn't exist purely for procreation.

It depends on whose definition of marriage you accept, common law or religious

Surely they fixed the law on sodomy when they stripped out things like oral sex, and other 'unnatural' acts. Or is that stupid sex acts law still on the books?

This is my mistake, I was looking at the wrong version of the Act, sodomy was removed from the Act as a criminal offence in 98 or 99, I recant my statements on sodomy

Bestiality is deemed animal abuse.

English common law places sodomy and bestiality as one law, and I therefore placed them together

 

[xtermin8or]

Most of those religions supported slavery. Should we then permit slavery?

Most religions or rather religious texts are silent on the matter of slavery, or do not speak out blatantly against it leading people to believe that it is accepted, while many religions do speak out blatantly against homosexuality.

The majority of SA are Christians and the Bible speaks out against homosexuality

You shall not lie with man as one lies with a women; this is an abomination.


Leviticus 18:22

and I would assume that the same text exists in the Koran and Tora

 

[sparklehorse]

the question we should ask ourselves is that of are we a constitutional democracy or dictatorship - because the constitutional and courts say that gay marriages be allowed should we then sit idly by and accept it - then we are in a constitutional dictatorship - where the constitution dictates our lives

or

Should Government take into consideration the will of the people and apply it to Gay marriages as in a constitutional democracy

correct me if I am wrong, but the leading religions in the country

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
African Religions
Judaism

all say that homosexuality is wrong, therefore the majority of people should be against gay marriages - will of the people

Sorry to drag your post in here again , but had to point out that you have it a bit backwards.

It would be a dictatorship if anyone's views, be they in the minority or majority, were forced on anyone else. In a free society, whether you agree or disagree with someones lifestyle, they (and you) are still allowed to live the way they want as long as they are not interfering with your right to live the way you want.

Just because an idea is popular, does not make it right.

 

[neio]

Quoting Bible scripture against homosexuality is against the law in Canada and you can go to prison for it.

 

[Nick333]

so many get this wrong, a democracy means at the very basic level, majority rule, minority rights must be taken into account, but the majority can not allow themselves to be bullied by the minority either

Oh my. Does it now?

You have no clue what youre talking about bud.
A democracy is a form of social agreement between individuals within a society whereby it is agreed that each adult person has a say in electing representives who are then responsible for the making decissions regarding the general running of said society.

Before any group of people decided on the democratic process they generally want assurance that in the event that their oppinnion on the running of things is not accepted by the majority, that what ever is decided upon does not infringe on their basic rights.

So before any form of elections take place people sit down and decide what those rights are. We call this a costitution. Most if not all democracies are built on this foundation.

Basic human rights are valid as long as they don't infringe on others rights. So for instance you are free to any religious belief you chose as long as your beliefs dont lead you to running down a busy street, beating people over the head with a bat or sacrificing children, because obviously that would infringe on others constitutional right not to be physical harmed or killed. You are entitled to believe that either of those acts is what you should be doing, but of course you are expected to refrain if you want your rights to be respected.

The fact is that gay marriage does not affect you. Noone is going to force you to marry someone who has the same sort of genitals as you and noone is going to force you to attend a gay wedding. Therefore you have no right, no matter your beliefs and how many of the electorate shares them to tell anyone else who they can marry.


On to another point: the argument that homosexual marriage is unnatural because you need both sexs to procreate is invalid because it is not a requirement of hetrosexual marriage that the couple procreates. Therefore the primary reason for marriage is not to procreate, therefore it is perfectly acceptable for a couple to marry without any intention of procreation. Therefore the inability to procreate can not be used to preclude anyone from being allowed to be legally married.

As to the arguments against same sex couples adopting children, they are all inherently sexist. They imply that each sex is better suited to certain roles when it comes to child rearing. In other words woman are better at say comforting and feeding, while men are better at discplining or whatever it is we're supposed to be better at. This may be true in a very general sense but im pretty sure that a lot of modern day parents would argue the point.
So if we're willing to admit that different sexes can take on non traditional parenting roles within a hetrosexual union or indeed in the case of a single parent scenario without damaging the child in some way, why should we believe that two men are incapable of fulfilling the neccesary nuturing roles in a same sex union?

 

[xtermin8or]

Quoting Bible scripture against homosexuality is against the law in Canada and you can go to prison for it.

really, I am truly glad I am not in Canada, I don't want to live in any country that bans the quoting of religious scripture, any religious scripture

 

[xtermin8or]

no matter how much you try to spin it Nick - the basics still comes down to majority rule, take it through the processes of constituitions and proportional representation, and equality, it all boils down to majority rule

 

[Nick333]

Most religions or rather religious texts are silent on the matter of slavery, or do not speak out blatantly against it leading people to believe that it is accepted, while many religions do speak out blatantly against homosexuality.

The majority of SA are Christians and the Bible speaks out against homosexuality



and I would assume that the same text exists in the Koran and Tora

The majority of germans elected a government who openly condemned Jews and had a very anti-jewish party line, prior to WW2. We all know what happened then.
The fact is the majorities power over the individual has to be curtailed to stop potential persecution. Persecution is always perpetrated by the strong against the weak this is why men far wiser than you or and I came up with a thing called a constitution.

 

[Nick333]

no matter how much you try to spin it Nick - the basics still comes down to majority rule, take it through the processes of constituitions and proportional representation, and equality, it all boils down to majority rule

It was a simple explanation that any republican, democrat or conservative or any other politician that ever held a majority in any modern democratic state would have given you mate. Youre just chosing to ignore the facts.

If in the unlikely event that the majority decided it was ok to commit murder in your world, then that would just have to be acceptable to everyone.

 

[xtermin8or]

The majority of germans elected a government who openly condemned Jews and had a very anti-jewish party line, prior to WW2. We all know what happened then.
The fact is the majorities power over the individual has to be curtailed to stop potential persecution. Persecution is always perpetrated by the strong against the weak this is why men far wiser than you or and I came up with a thing called a constitution.

Off topic - what is interesting about that is that when the officials went back for the Nuremburgh trials, they hardly found anyone who admitted they were part of or ever supported the Nazi Party

back to topic - It is not always the majority who exert power over the individual, but as you rightly say, the powerful over the weak, as has happened in colonial India, Sri-Lanka, and America - and in South Africa -

The powerful use their power to keep the majority disenfranchised in an effort to maintain their power - Hitler was also elected to power by imprisoning his opposition just before the election

Oh yes, the Americans didn't keep the Native Americans from voting, they just killed off most of them

 

[xtermin8or]

It was a simple explanation that any republican, democrat or conservative or any other politician that ever held a majority in any modern democratic state would have given you mate. Youre just chosing to ignore the facts.

If in the unlikely event that the majority decided it was ok to commit murder in your world, then that would just have to be acceptable to everyone.

in the same way then, if someone were to go the concourt and in the unlikely event they declared that murder is constitutionally allowed, should we just sit back and watch people killing each other

this is where the majority of people's views and common morals and decency have to step in

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Most religions or rather religious texts are silent on the matter of slavery, or do not speak out blatantly against it leading people to believe that it is accepted, while many religions do speak out blatantly against homosexuality.

The majority of SA are Christians and the Bible speaks out against homosexuality



and I would assume that the same text exists in the Koran and Tora

Following your line of thought, this would mean that christian beliefs would have to be forced upon those who are not christian. No offense but that sounds like a crock of bull to me. Personally I don't really care what the bible says, equality is enshrined in the constitution and gay marriage is (or soon to be) law. Religious folks need to just deal with it.

Who wants to wager that in 20 years time suddenly christian teachings would be modified to accomodate homosexuality for fear of coming across as a discriminatory religion?

 

[Nick333]

Off topic - what is interesting about that is that when the officials went back for the Nuremburgh trials, they hardly found anyone who admitted they were part of or ever supported the Nazi Party

back to topic - It is not always the majority who exert power over the individual, but as you rightly say, the powerful over the weak, as has happened in colonial India, Sri-Lanka, and America - and in South Africa -

The powerful use their power to keep the majority disenfranchised in an effort to maintain their power - Hitler was also elected to power by imprisoning his opposition just before the election

Oh yes, the Americans didn't keep the Native Americans from voting, they just killed off most of them

Constitutions are not perfect, they are only words after all and can be ignored when it suits those in power. Just as an example AA and BEE intentionally ignore white peoples right by denying them the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of race, wether this is good or bad is not obviously highly debatable as will always be the case when it comes to constitutional issues. But that is a case where the majority have been the victims of human rights abuse and an attempt is being to rectify passed wrongs. Please I dont want to debate it here, Im not saying its right or wrong good or bad, just that its a debatable issue.

I dont think on the other hand that same sex marriage is debatable, I think its an enaliable right for a person to decide who they want to share their property with and who they want to raise their children with, and who they want their property to belong to and who they want their children to be looked after by when the die. After all, legally speaking all a marriage is, isa legal union between two people and it only impacts on those two people. It doesnt disadvantage anyone else in anyway.
And you know what if it is a big sin for two people of the same sex to enter into that union then only they will burn in hell.

 

[Nick333]

in the same way then, if someone were to go the concourt and in the unlikely event they declared that murder is constitutionally allowed, should we just sit back and watch people killing each other

this is where the majority of people's views and common morals and decency have to step in

Im assuming that youre equating same sex marriage to murder, in which case arguments over, 'cos you obviously have personal issues you need to deal, no offence intended.

 

[noxibox]

many of the charges sexual predators and deviants face includes priciples of common law, if we start chipping away at common law, where will it end

No, he would then argue that the dress code is unconstitutional and can therefore not be enforced, and he has the concourt ruling to defend this

My understanding is that English common law provides the base for aspects of our law and a guide to the practical application of law, but it is not the law. Are there any specific cases where we have no written law and therefore prosecute on the basis of English common law? If this were the case why did South Africa, the UK and numerous other countries have specific written laws prohibiting particular activities?

Someone could if they wished spend the time and money to go to the constitutional court and have suits declared an infringement of their right to free expression. Or that requiring boys and girls to adhere to different hair lengths at school or anywhere is inherently sexist; it is, but is someone going to care enough to take it to court? Going to the constitutional court is expensive.

 

[Sarakael]

I wonder how long its going to be before God turns Cape Town and Johannesburg into the new Sodom and Gomorrah

Luckily I'm safe in PE

 

[BeLgaRiOn]

I wonder how long its going to be before God turns Cape Town and Johannesburg into the new Sodom and Gomorrah

Luckily I'm safe in PE

Ignorance is just as bad as denial...

 

[Sarakael]

I guess my ignorance is showing through now because I have no clue what you are going on about