SOUTH Africa will become only the fifth country to permit same-sex marriage after its Constitutional Court ordered parliament to amend the nation's marriage laws within a year.

 

In a landmark ruling, the country's highest court ordered the Government to stop delaying legislation that would allow two Pretoria-based white Afrikaner lesbians, Marie Fourie and Cecelia Bonthuys, to marry.

 

"The common-law definition of marriage is declared to be inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that it does not permit same-sex couples to enjoy the status and the benefits coupled with responsibilities it accords heterosexual couples," said judge Albie Sachs.

 

The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Canada are the only other countries to have legalised same-sex marriage.

 

In Britain, civil partnerships for same-sex couples will become legal on December 21..

 

The Constitutional Court decision will require the definition of marriage to be changed from a union between a man and a woman to a union between two persons. Last year, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the couple, declaring that the current law was discriminatory. But they discovered that they were still unable to register for a church wedding and petitioned the Constitutional Court.

 

The judges of the Johannesburg-based court ordered the Government, by 10 votes to one, to amend the country's marriage laws within the next 12 months.

 

The dissenting judge had wanted the decision to be implemented immediately.

 

The court said that if parliament did not act, the legal definition of marriage would be automatically changed to include same-sex unions.

 

The decision breaks an important taboo in Africa, where homosexuality is widely condemned and even outlawed in some countries. Two Nigerians are facing the death penalty if convicted of sodomy. In neighbouring Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe frequently attacks homosexuals and lesbians as worse than dogs and pigs.

 

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has outlawed homosexual sex, declaring it to be against the order of nature. He recently ordered detectives to find gays and lock them up and charge them.

 

South Africa's current constitution is among the most liberal in the world. It was the first country to outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians.

 

While the decision was welcomed by the nation's gay community yesterday, some groups questioned the need to delay its implementation.

 

"Why wait 12 months?" asked Thuli Madi, from the lesbian and gay rights group Behind the Mask. "If parliament does not do anything in 12 months, we can marry anyway, so why not make it effective now?"

 

In the wider South African community, however, the ruling has caused some disquiet. Leading churches, in what is still a deeply conservative country, have called for a referendum on the issue. The African Christian Democratic Party called for an amendment to the constitution that would nullify the ruling.

 

Homosexual sex was decriminalised in South Africa only seven years ago and prejudice against gays is rife. This year, a minister from the Dutch Reformed Church was defrocked because of his homosexuality.

 

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E2703,00.html

good!

I've come to terms with this - that's cool.

I've come to terms with this - that's cool.

 

Me too.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

Kind of sad when the place where apartheid was instituted is willing to allow gays to marriage while we sit on our hands and pretend there isn't a problem/refuse to acknowledge it.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

 

yet your boy in the white house continues to despise it and work his damnest to make sure it becomes illegal.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

 

yet your boy in the white house continues to despise it and work his damnest to make sure it becomes illegal.

 

But let's be perfectly honest, since you referred to him as "my boy"...will anyone ever agree 100% with the views of someone else? Up till a couple years ago I did agree with him on gay marriage but that's since changed. I'm really sick of the war in Iraq not having an exit strategy and it's caused me a couple times to denounce my support for the administration (because i like to think that that means something to people's lives, when I denounce my support). But overall I agree with the administration more than I disagree with it, thus my support for it. Would I welcome a change? Sure. But in 04 this administration was the one with which I identified most, therefore my support for it.

 

But back on topic.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

 

I wouldn't say stupid. Morals can't be stupid. They are only relative to you as an individual, not your intelligence.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

 

I wouldn't say stupid. Morals can't be stupid. They are only relative to you as an individual, not your intelligence.

 

its not about morals.

 

its about legal rights within the country, legals rights especially when it comes to taxation that one group is allowed and another not allowed.

 

it has zero to do with morals, leave the moral issues on this up to the respective churches.

and yet we want to outlaw gay marriage because we as a country are stupid

 

 

Here's this conservative's take on it:

 

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always should be. Therefore it should be up to the different sects of different religions whether or not to allow or disallow the "marriage" portion of this debate.

 

As far as equal rights, however, there should be a way for same sex couples to be granted a civil union from the government enabling them to the same rights as married couples, and perhaps a law forcing employers to enact this.

Thats perfectly fine. Nobody will ever force a religion to allow or disallow same sex marriage within their religion because that would be a blatant breach of the free exercise right. But I do also disagree that the marriage itself is isolated to religion. It's become a generic term and that is not the fault of gays or liberals and its not necessarily a bad thing. Its just how we as a society have seen it develop. Maybe individual religions can see marriage in the eyes of their God the way they want it. But I dont think they can isolate it to relgion alone. Another way of seeing this is by seeing how marriage is different across religions and cultures. Heck I dont think some Catholics think too fondly of other Christians views on marriage/divorce. So its hard to define any consistent religious marriage. The history of marriage also undermines its centrality to religion.

 

What makes me realize that this is not about marriage in religion and moreso about opposing gays is seeing those who fight tooth and nail again gay marriage also fight tooth and nail against civil unions. Can we still say its a religion thing anymore? :confused

No, the last thing you said illustrates when it shifts from having scruples to starting a culture war.

Great to see :thumbup

Heck, you don't even have to be religious to know that nature did not intend same sex sexual relationships. Sex is a reproductive tool. I dare anyone to tell me how two men or two women can successfully reproduce sexually.

 

My girlfriend tried to get me pregnant, but it didn't work because I am oppressed by the government. :plain

Heck, you don't even have to be religious to know that nature did not intend same sex sexual relationships. Sex is a reproductive tool. I dare anyone to tell me how two men or two women can successfully reproduce sexually.

 

My girlfriend tried to get me pregnant, but it didn't work because I am oppressed by the government. :plain

 

 

Oh so now only actions that result in some reproductive objective of nature should be allowed? The government can ban anything it wants that is not an objective of nature? I guess in your warped world the only actions you take are objectives of nature. Do you only eat, sleep, and reproduce?

 

Let me ask you this. Do you and your girlfriend use a condom or birth control during sex? Do you engage in sex for non-reproductive reasons? Nature didnt intend it! Cant do it!! As you plainly said, sex is a reproductive tool and those who dont use it for reproduction are unatural.

 

You better be trying to get every girl you sleep with pregnant buddy. Basically your warped argument is that the government can make non-reproductive sex illegal because it is not furthering the reproductive objective of nature.

 

Lets follow this logic:

 

Watching a baseball game does not further any objective of nature so its ok to make it illegal for no real reason. Having friends does not further an objective of nature so its ok to outlaw friendships for no real reason. Going on the internet does not further an objective of nature so its ok for the govt to outlaw the internet.

 

Marriage is not something nature dictated. Nature makes men really horny everytime they see a women they are attracted to. This does not end when a man gets married. So nature is saying that its ok to sleep with as many women as humanly possible to produce as man babies as possible. So normal marriage and monogomy are actually against nature so its ok to outlaw them.

 

Seriously, how does anything two consenting adults do affect you at all? I dont like your screenname and it isnt furthering an objective of nature so please change it at my behest. Who are you to tell other people how to live their lives?

I have always wondered how Darwinian thought explains homosexuality, though. :mischief2

I have always wondered how Darwinian thought explains homosexuality, though. :mischief2

 

 

It certainly can be a deviation from some accepted biological norm. Im not denying that nature dictates reproduction as the way we are made as ideal beings. But few of us are ideal beings. And people shouldn't be stopped from exercising their own natural actions and desires because those actions might not fall in line with the ideal biological being(except where harmful to others, ie child molestors).

 

Is being gay any different from a man or women who, for whatever reason, cannot actually reproduce but can still have sex? Certainly both categories fall into the Darwinian deviant. We certainly wouldnt tell these people that they cant enjoy their lives because they engage in an act that is futile in purpose though right?

I have always wondered how Darwinian thought explains homosexuality, though. :mischief2

 

 

There are pandas in zoos who won't screw to save their species. There's one way.

I have always wondered how Darwinian thought explains homosexuality, though. :mischief2

 

 

There are pandas in zoos who won't screw to save their species. There's one way.

That line reminds me of my favorite Fight Club quote.

I have always wondered how Darwinian thought explains homosexuality, though. :mischief2

 

 

There are pandas in zoos who won't screw to save their species. There's one way.

That line reminds me of my favorite Fight Club quote.

 

Where I lifted it.

 

It also happens to be troo.

Heck, you don't even have to be religious to know that nature did not intend same sex sexual relationships. Sex is a reproductive tool. I dare anyone to tell me how two men or two women can successfully reproduce sexually.

 

My girlfriend tried to get me pregnant, but it didn't work because I am oppressed by the government. :plain

 

 

Oh so now only actions that result in some reproductive objective of nature should be allowed? The government can ban anything it wants that is not an objective of nature? I guess in your warped world the only actions you take are objectives of nature. Do you only eat, sleep, and reproduce?

 

Let me ask you this. Do you and your girlfriend use a condom or birth control during sex? Do you engage in sex for non-reproductive reasons? Nature didnt intend it! Cant do it!! As you plainly said, sex is a reproductive tool and those who dont use it for reproduction are unatural.

 

You better be trying to get every girl you sleep with pregnant buddy. Basically your warped argument is that the government can make non-reproductive sex illegal because it is not furthering the reproductive objective of nature.

 

Lets follow this logic:

 

Watching a baseball game does not further any objective of nature so its ok to make it illegal for no real reason. Having friends does not further an objective of nature so its ok to outlaw friendships for no real reason. Going on the internet does not further an objective of nature so its ok for the govt to outlaw the internet.

 

Marriage is not something nature dictated. Nature makes men really horny everytime they see a women they are attracted to. This does not end when a man gets married. So nature is saying that its ok to sleep with as many women as humanly possible to produce as man babies as possible. So normal marriage and monogomy are actually against nature so its ok to outlaw them.

 

Seriously, how does anything two consenting adults do affect you at all? I dont like your screenname and it isnt furthering an objective of nature so please change it at my behest. Who are you to tell other people how to live their lives?

That is just taking it too far. Try to see it from a basic point of view. The penis was intended to go into the vagina, religious or not. Feces comes out through the anus. Sperm entering the body through the anus for any species is not very natural or practical. Now I am guessing you will come back with, "Everything you do is practical?!? Everything you do makes sense?!?" Don't get me wrong, I am not against homosexuals. I never abandoned any of my friends, male or female, when they came out of the closet. I just think it is weird how people assume that if someone is against homosexuality at all, it is always for religious reasons.

That is just taking it too far. Try to see it from a basic point of view. The penis was intended to go into the vagina, religious or not. Feces comes out through the anus. Sperm entering the body through the anus for any species is not very natural or practical. Now I am guessing you will come back with, "Everything you do is practical?!? Everything you do makes sense?!?" Don't get me wrong, I am not against homosexuals. I never abandoned any of my friends, male or female, when they came out of the closet. I just think it is weird how people assume that if someone is against homosexuality at all, it is always for religious reasons.

 

 

What about people who are born gay? Like, I don't know, most homosexuals? If they're NATURALLY born predisposed towards their own sex, then what you're saying doesn't hold any water.

 

Let's be honest and I'm not going to beat around the bush. A lot of homosexual men are effeminant as hell. To the point where it's not some feigned act because they're expressing their gat identity. They just are more like women. The gay voice usually only happens in people that actually ARE, in fact, gay. Maybe somewhere along the line a woman's chromosome mixes with a man's, or vice versa for lesbians, and it makes them that way I just don't know.

 

But if what you're saying is true, and I'm pretture sure it isn't, then it doesn't hold any water. Because then, if you're going to use the practicality argument what about people who aren't born practically? I mean, babies born with both sex organs and other genetic arguments. Doesn't seem to be a PRACTICAL explanation than that. The world works on more than a practical level, here. This ain't ancient Greece and you're not Aristotle. There are a lot more grays than a lot of people are willing to admit, here.

Heck, you don't even have to be religious to know that nature did not intend same sex sexual relationships. Sex is a reproductive tool. I dare anyone to tell me how two men or two women can successfully reproduce sexually.

 

My girlfriend tried to get me pregnant, but it didn't work because I am oppressed by the government. :plain

 

 

Oh so now only actions that result in some reproductive objective of nature should be allowed? The government can ban anything it wants that is not an objective of nature? I guess in your warped world the only actions you take are objectives of nature. Do you only eat, sleep, and reproduce?

 

Let me ask you this. Do you and your girlfriend use a condom or birth control during sex? Do you engage in sex for non-reproductive reasons? Nature didnt intend it! Cant do it!! As you plainly said, sex is a reproductive tool and those who dont use it for reproduction are unatural.

 

You better be trying to get every girl you sleep with pregnant buddy. Basically your warped argument is that the government can make non-reproductive sex illegal because it is not furthering the reproductive objective of nature.

 

Lets follow this logic:

 

Watching a baseball game does not further any objective of nature so its ok to make it illegal for no real reason. Having friends does not further an objective of nature so its ok to outlaw friendships for no real reason. Going on the internet does not further an objective of nature so its ok for the govt to outlaw the internet.

 

Marriage is not something nature dictated. Nature makes men really horny everytime they see a women they are attracted to. This does not end when a man gets married. So nature is saying that its ok to sleep with as many women as humanly possible to produce as man babies as possible. So normal marriage and monogomy are actually against nature so its ok to outlaw them.

 

Seriously, how does anything two consenting adults do affect you at all? I dont like your screenname and it isnt furthering an objective of nature so please change it at my behest. Who are you to tell other people how to live their lives?

That is just taking it too far. Try to see it from a basic point of view. The penis was intended to go into the vagina, religious or not. Feces comes out through the anus. Sperm entering the body through the anus for any species is not very natural or practical. Now I am guessing you will come back with, "Everything you do is practical?!? Everything you do makes sense?!?" Don't get me wrong, I am not against homosexuals. I never abandoned any of my friends, male or female, when they came out of the closet. I just think it is weird how people assume that if someone is against homosexuality at all, it is always for religious reasons.

 

Its not taking it too far when it follows your same warped sense of logic. You say the penis was intended to go into the vagina. Im guessing you're against oral sex between men and women? Or at least you would be ok if the government, for no legitimate reason, decided to outlaw it?

 

You have no reason to be against homosexuality except that it isnt something you personally do so you think its ok for you not to like it. You havent been able to distinguish why one is ok but the other isnt.

Heck, you don't even have to be religious to know that nature did not intend same sex sexual relationships. Sex is a reproductive tool. I dare anyone to tell me how two men or two women can successfully reproduce sexually.

 

My girlfriend tried to get me pregnant, but it didn't work because I am oppressed by the government. :plain

 

 

Oh so now only actions that result in some reproductive objective of nature should be allowed? The government can ban anything it wants that is not an objective of nature? I guess in your warped world the only actions you take are objectives of nature. Do you only eat, sleep, and reproduce?

 

Let me ask you this. Do you and your girlfriend use a condom or birth control during sex? Do you engage in sex for non-reproductive reasons? Nature didnt intend it! Cant do it!! As you plainly said, sex is a reproductive tool and those who dont use it for reproduction are unatural.

 

You better be trying to get every girl you sleep with pregnant buddy. Basically your warped argument is that the government can make non-reproductive sex illegal because it is not furthering the reproductive objective of nature.

 

Lets follow this logic:

 

Watching a baseball game does not further any objective of nature so its ok to make it illegal for no real reason. Having friends does not further an objective of nature so its ok to outlaw friendships for no real reason. Going on the internet does not further an objective of nature so its ok for the govt to outlaw the internet.

 

Marriage is not something nature dictated. Nature makes men really horny everytime they see a women they are attracted to. This does not end when a man gets married. So nature is saying that its ok to sleep with as many women as humanly possible to produce as man babies as possible. So normal marriage and monogomy are actually against nature so its ok to outlaw them.

 

Seriously, how does anything two consenting adults do affect you at all? I dont like your screenname and it isnt furthering an objective of nature so please change it at my behest. Who are you to tell other people how to live their lives?

That is just taking it too far. Try to see it from a basic point of view. The penis was intended to go into the vagina, religious or not. Feces comes out through the anus. Sperm entering the body through the anus for any species is not very natural or practical. Now I am guessing you will come back with, "Everything you do is practical?!? Everything you do makes sense?!?" Don't get me wrong, I am not against homosexuals. I never abandoned any of my friends, male or female, when they came out of the closet. I just think it is weird how people assume that if someone is against homosexuality at all, it is always for religious reasons.

 

Its not taking it too far when it follows your same warped sense of logic. You say the penis was intended to go into the vagina. Im guessing you're against oral sex between men and women? Or at least you would be ok if the government, for no legitimate reason, decided to outlaw it?

 

You have no reason to be against homosexuality except that it isnt something you personally do so you think its ok for you not to like it. You havent been able to distinguish why one is ok but the other isnt.

Oral sex is degrading. Honestly, anything going into someone's pooper disgusts me GREATLY. If you are a straight guy and you aren't on the verge of puking while thinking about it, you should leave your girlfriend because you are living a lie.