Article 128: The law prohibits child marriage, and the legal age for marriage is 18 years for women and 21 for men.
What is the youngest age you can get married in us?In the United States, the marriage age is set by each state and territory, either by the common law or by individual statutes. Minimum marriage ages are set to prevent child marriages. An individual in the U.S. can marry without parental consent at the age of 18 in all states except for Nebraska, where the age is 19.
Can a 13 year old get married?The age of consent is 18. However, an emancipation of minors exception exists (14 years old and older). With parental consent and judicial approval, a person can marry under the age of eighteen but the adolescent partners and the minors parents have to meet with court officials who must rule out abuse or coercion.
What country is it legal to marry a dead person?France France is one of the few countries in which it is legal to marry a partner posthumously.
Petition supported by almost 70 countries, including the entire E. With only 7 countries and 6 states from the U. To legalize same sex marriage is to award the right of marriage to every citizen and having citizens be viewed as equals in the eyes of the government. Once it is made legal, government attempts to undercut the rights of same-sex couples will be transparent, and thus more easily dealt with.
Every argument raised by the proposition has a practical element to it, none more so than their first charge — that current legislation is minority discrimination. The crucial question that needs to be asked of the proposition is this: What changes will actually occur if same-sex marriages are legalized?
As our positive case substantiates below, there exists reasonable disagreement as to whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable. The cases are categorically different. Finally, while we concede that ideologically driven legislators will often find ways in which to manipulate legislation to damage the interests of others, we feel we should consider the issue realistically.
Indeed, we feel that homophobic legislators might be even more tempted to actively remove the rights of homosexuals in marriages if they feel that they have been given no choice in the matter.
Generating buy-in from legislators and citizens alike will be a central argument in our substantive case. Importance of Government Some arguments against gay marriage hold that they are merely unnecessary: same-sex couples can live as they please without social or legal recognition. But this argument inadequately addresses the social position of same-sex couples.
The onus falls upon individuals to create situations of equality, but institutional barriers provided by the What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? discourage citizen action as it feels like an exercise in futility. It is interesting how little time proposition has committed to the question of Government obligation and democracy, because we feel that this is a crucial issue in this debate.
This is interesting not least because Governments, in all parts of the world, almost never behave this way take redistributive programs for example — the equality of income is hardly tampered with by Government. Similarly, we also try to make Governmental decisions that produce acceptable utilitarian outputs.
It is tempting to What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? that these claims stem from a conservative, homophobic camp no pun intendednot a liberal one! Expanding the Right to Marry Serves the State It must be understood that marriage is an instrument toward subsequent rights and interactions with the state that is being denied to a group. The state perceives that it has some benefit from creating marriage as a legal institution, and it does, although not to the same degree that those who engage in marriage receive benefits.
What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? decreases legal ambiguity for individuals in a society, and lessens the burden upon the state to clarify ambiguities that result. Marriages are a mechanism to clarify next of kin, responsibilities toward children, the people who are impacted by a legal will upon the death of a spouse, and many other interactions that individuals have between themselves, each other, and the state.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will lessen this burden further, but it is a secondary concern when facing the rights and freedoms of the individuals in question. This point is simply unsubstantiated and irrelevant. Does a dad need to be married to another man to know his legal and social parental responsibilities in relation to his kids from a previous relationship?! These arguments fall far short of constituting an independent reason to legalise same-sex marriage. Besides, many of the What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
complications that are legitimate e. Similarly, in South Africa, both gay and straight couples can choose either civil unions or marriage — there is no difference, other than symbolism, in the legal consequences.
We conclude, then, that the legal regimes which proposition imagine to be at stake in this debate, are not at stake. This leg of their case falls flat. More than just gay rights The transgender and intersex communities are often legislated into confusing situations because of mandates for opposite-sex marriage.
In the transgender community in Australia, the law, previous to Feb. This means that in Australia Post-operative transgendered persons may marry persons of the opposite gender to their current gender. Pre-operative transgendered persons are not allowed marriage and those who change their gender after marriage are still in a legal gray area.
We see that this puts undue stress on transgendered persons to obtain very expensive surgery to change their gender if they wish to have a legally recognized marriage.
Mandating gender-difference for marriage creates significant problems for these people. This is estimated to be performed for one to two out of every 1000 live births. We concede all of that. But what does that have to do with the debate at hand? The only rational link we can impute to the proposition team — since it is unclear from their superflouous entry — is the embedded but, unhelpfully unexpressed claim that same-sex marriage should be legalised in order to help improve the social and legal status of the transgender and intersex communities.
For one thing, if same-sex marriage is legalised, we will still — rightly or wrongly — not be accomodating persons who do not fit the straight-gay dichotomy, or the male-female one, with the gay and heterosexual marriage regimes that would then be on the statute books.
We reject it as an unconvincing, and unsubstantiated, red herring. Inadequacy of Alternative Categories Opponents to same-sex marriage often point to similar institutions, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, and claim that those should be satisfactory for same-sex couples who wish to receive some rights from the state when entering a marriage-like relationship.
However, civil unions and domestic partnerships rarely have rights on par with marriage, and reinforce that same-sex couples are second class citizens. In many countries, certain rights are tied to the recognition of marriage. Adoption and custody rights are often made more complicated by the restriction on same-sex marriage.
While married couples can adopt and convey custody to their partner when they die, same-sex couples find this impossible in many countries, from Italy to Chile. Their children are removed from their homes because, since they are denied marriage rights, they have no legal guardianship. These deficiencies in the provision or rights to same-sex couples are only scratching the surface of what is denied to same-sex couples.
First, civil unions are not inherently different in the rights and burdens they distribute, compared to marriage. This is contingent on the civil union legislation of a particular country. So What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? is perfectly possible to design parallel legal structures to those of marriage. Second, it is also false to suggest that questions around custody, and the like, cannot be equittably dealt with between straight couples and gay gouples unless all couples enter into marriage regimes.
Gay couples in South Africa, including married ones, sometimes struggle to access parental rights due to administrative and social hurdles. This speaks to the fact that each of these social policy issues can be, and tend to be, independently debated and decided. Proposition is, without evidence, assuming that there is a necessary connection between them. We do not think that the symbolism constitutes a serious enough harm — it is the associated legal benefits of the institution of marriage that is a more important, tangible issue of harm.
Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experiences. Stereotypes of gay people as influencing youth or recruiting them towards a gay lifestyle have long been part of the propaganda of the anti-gay movement. An excellent example is that of homosexuals serving in What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? military; where it was thought that homosexuals would not make good soldiers, today they serve with distinction in dozens of militaries across the world.
Marriage allows a couple that is sexually committed to have a social category that encompasses more than their sexual intimacy. Marriage is important towards the ultimate goal of equality not merely because it bestows equal rights but because it forces traditional mindsets to reevaluate the nature of homosexual relationships. This argument is entirely unsubstantiated. It rests on two rather vacuous assumptions: First, that at present there exists a wide spread belief that homosexuals are hypersexual, infidelious and promiscuous, and second, that this is, in no small part, due to their not being able to marry.
The proposition presents no evidence for their first assumption other than an article in the guardian where two thirds of surveyed people believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. But the very article they cite does not speak to the issues the proposition raises. The participants in the survey suggest that people believe homosexuals provide imbalanced parental role models and violate traditional family paradigms. As wrong as these opinions may be, they are a far cry from claims that homosexuals lure youths into homosexuality or participate in unsavoury sexual behaviour.
Marriage will almost certainly not change the adoptions rights of couples, as the very article they cite suggests that there exists no current problem in relation to adoption agencies or legislation outside of Catholic adoption agencies who, being private institutions, would not be compelled to change their position anyway. A failure to meaningfully change the already unproblematic status quo means this point is moot. The second assumption is that the alleged wide spread beliefs that homosexuals are hypersexual, infidelious and promiscuous have formed because they cannot marry.
Governments should not discourage people from their identity When homosexual individuals are denied equal rights of marriage as heterosexual individuals, they are given a choice between their identity and their desires for family and companionship, as well as legal benefits. The sad truth is, many people choose the second, to the harm of themselves, their future spouses, their children and all those who care about their happiness. Why do these people choose to deny their homosexual desires?
You faced by ridicule and stigma amongst your peers, which while shameful, is still something people can endure. Its a popular joke that women start planning out their weddings when they are 10, imagine 5 years later being asked to sacrifice that wedding just to accept your own identity as a lesbian? This dichotomy is false, and no one should feel forced to choose between these options. This is possibly why we see so many stories of married men and women finally coming out at 50 and leaving in their wake broken families; or the champions of the anti-gay movement, the Ex-gays, who went through conversion therapy and turned straight so they could have a family; or even unsatisfied broken individuals who even until their death live an unfulfilling lie.
Proposition presupposes a number of things about homosexuals. Number one, it presupposes the very attitude that proposition says they want to remove from society — the belief that homosexuality is somehow different from heterosexuality. Next, it presupposes that homosexuals end up, with a greater frequency than heterosexuals, living sexually debauched lives, and that this greater frequency is somehow the result of their not being able to legally marry.
We feel this is ludicrous. Much more important, we would argue, is the social ridicule they face, and this social ridicule is likely to worsen if homosexual marriage is What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
legalized. But prescribe a medicine that will not make the headache go away, as the homophobic spirit of their own case inadvertently exhibits. Therefore, while same-sex marriage may sometimes be desirable, it is non-necessary and mostly insignificant. The opposition attacked our opening analogies: of course, all analogies must have some dis-analogous part, and surely the scope of the examples of Jim Crow and apartheid do not make a one-for-one correspondence to the denial of same-sex marriage.
Again proposition misses the point of the debate. Our claims were: 1 The specific issue of the right to marry is a small and tangential one in comparison to Apartheid or the Jim Crow laws. Substantive equality relates to, but is not limited to, all those things proposition has just mentioned — equal treatment from the police, from fellow citizens, and from employers.
Further, proposition persists in failing to pry apart concerns by gay persons that fall outside the debate, but which are legitimate. Not only has this challenge been responded to with silence, but we in opposition have given positive evidence and argument to the contrary see, again, for example, our entry on the backlash against gay persons which evidences the non-obvious link between same-sex marriage and more substantive equality concerns that gay persons rightly have — like, indeed, living in safe environments such as being able to frequent a pub without risk of becoming a hate crime victim So, the connection between same-sex marriage legalistion and these alleged wider social benefits for gay persons remains unproven.
Rebuttal: More What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? gay rights The argument is extremely relevant. For many of these people being asked to declare a gender so as to judge their qualification for a opposite gendered marriage is unfair. That is a different debate. When you What is the What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? age for marriage in Africa?
two people are married, there is certain socially conditioned imagery which comes to mind. Their level of commitment to one another, their love and respect, companionship, even married couple jokes. When you hear the that two people are each others What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
partners, now what comes to mind? The images most ready-at-hand are stereotypical ones. If the reason we deny same-sex couples the symbolic importance of a marriage is because of majority homophobic sentiment, we are condoning the existence of those sentiments. While governments cannot make people not homophobic any more than they can make them not gay as they attempt to do in Iran with forced sex-change operationsWhat is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
resistance to allowing same-sex couples to marry is significant because the resistance is based upon non-existent, biased harms, that marriage will be defiled, that gays will hurt children, etc. If the government kowtows to the overweening bias of its citizens, it ultimately ends up supporting that bias, formalizing it, and giving it more power in society. Even here we see a difference between us and them, in the impartiality of the law.
So, proposition does agree, after all, that there really are no substantive legal differences between marriage and civil unions, and that the principle difference between the two is a set of cultural and religious beliefs and associations.
We agree, firmly, that there are cultural and religious differences between civil unions and marriages. This symbolic value is tremendous to a great number people, and it is a symbolic value that is attached to the entire institution of marriage, not just to specific cases of marriage.
This opposition to same-sex marriage does not even have to be predicated on homophobia, but is often predicated simply on a resistance to altering religious and cultural conventions. The government is not condoning homophobia by respecting this cultural and religious preference.
If this were true, why have the uptake of marriages in countries like Canada, Spain and South Africa been so poor? On the contrary, many gay persons do not recognise the marriage symbolism that proposition is waxing lyrical about, let alone going on mass protests fighting for inclusion.
So, given that the demand for same-sex marriage within the gay What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? itself is clearly elusive, and not widespread at all…. We conclude the following, here: 1. The symbolism attaching to marriage is not proven by proposition to be one that is universally accepted; 2. But, if we look at the democracies of today, we see an ever-increasing trend towards more and more checks to prevent the tyranny of the majority that the opposition supports.
Presidential Vetos, Judiciaries, and Constitutions, all provide checks against the majority rule. Opposition argumentation seems to suggest that the government may only override the will of the majority What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? the most extreme circumstances e. A government may subvert the will of the majority when, if it did not act, demonstrable harms would result. We can see this happen throughout the history of human rights, be it anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action laws, hate crime laws, or any other.
The insinuation that government legislation for same-sex marriage would be an unfair imposition on the majority of dissenters only stands once government starts forcing its citizens to marry someone of the same sex.
All modern democracies exhibit majoritarianism. It is foolish to even suggest that they do not. The debate at hand is just such a marginal case; a tiny minority demand formal equality in relation to a fairly tangential issue, and a large majority reject that on the grounds of cultural and religious preference.
We can even see this in a number of less tangential cases: redistributive practices are restricted by majority preferences for low taxes despite the substantial harm that non-redistributive capitalism can do to poorer citizens. Private medical aid systems are put in place despite minority groups who cannot afford them. Similarly, private insurance is encouraged in places where the majority can afford it but the minority is left to suffer. Similarly many states outlaw stem cell research.
Is the proposition willing to attack these examples? The Opposition claims that laws should lag behind societal change, and should reflect the majority views. We believe once we see a growing increase in societal support for the rights of a minority group, or even just an acknowledgment that their right are being violated, the law needs to take the first step.
We see that historically, legal rights precede social equality for unequal groups. With the passage of time, we see that these were true successes as they became societal norms. The same stands true in this debate. Although culture can create and change norms, creating a norm can affect culture. The burden of explaining your relationship was trivialized by opposition. But if every time you explain it, if the way you are forced to socially explain yourself revolves around your difference, your gayness, you What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
forced to identify yourself as gay before anything else. This makes it more difficult to change the social paradigm that this difference is not bad. Proposition agrees that changing social mindsets is of vital importance, but legal change is not just a stimulus for this social change, its a necessary precursor. Societal mindsets are fluid, a lot more so than laws. Additionally, mindsets vary, laws are universal.
The problem this brings is that when faced with discrimination by the populous you have ways to deal with it, be it by ignoring it, tolerating it, or ideally fighting it. There are support groups, and their are courtrooms. But when the law itself is the one wronging this people, they have no recourse. They cannot fight it, they cannot avoid it or ignore it, and it they try to take their right, they are criminals.
This legal barrier is far greater than the social barriers, and needs to be lifted before the social barriers can be fought. This rebuttal effectively argues that the state must act as a pathfinder for society, leading the way for its citizenry. We have two responses: 1 The examples used by proposition are disanalagous.
Consider what is at stake in this debate: the positive right to access a predominantly religious, socially symbolic, institution. Consider what was at stake when the state previously excluded women and blacks from certain processes e.
The negative right to not be excluded from decision making processes. First, we are talking about different levels of magnitude in respect to the consequences of these rights. The right to deterimine who governs you, and thereby gain power to make a range of policy decisions that will affect the fundamental design and routine of society, etc. Proposition cannot claim to have found causality by looking at cases in which the state intervened and 50 years later the world is a better place.
Ending Apartheid did not require a pro-active What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?, just a state-segregated economy that could no longer function for a citizenry that was mostly excluded from it. Botha as last pre-democracy State President etc. Long after the passage of civil rights legislation that allowed for formal equality for African-Americans, African-Americans continue to experience large-scale social discrimination, in both seemingly-benign ways e.
True equality stems from the successful engagement of false or unwarranted beliefs and attitudes towards gay persons by using instruments at the coal face of such discrimination e. Legislating homo-tolerance through the oblique policy of legalising same-sex marriage has not worked in one country around the world.
The moral is clear: the law is a very poor instrument of social change. We still believe that it is perfectly easy to express your relationship in a casual and uncomplicated way; if there is any issue that will cause social tension, it is not what you call the relationship, but the fact that you and your partner are of the same sex. We think it will make zero difference — the driver of that tension is prejudice against same-sex love, not against same-sex couples being unmarried!!!!!
Let the battle be won first in the minds of people — let them come to accept that homosexuals are just like other people. Forcing homosexuals into the lives of those who resist same-sex marriage, by disregarding inculcated social, cultural and religious preferences, is a sure-fire way to force the fight for substantive equality one step back. Rebuttal: Stereotypes- Propagation and impact. The opposition must be living in a utopia county, which from their own evidence we know South Africa is not, to believe that hyper sexuality is not a common stereotype What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
to homosexuals. Furthermore if they bothered to read our evidence, they would see it indeed clearly single out this stereotype. We believe by denying Same sex marriage this stereotype of the homosexual who is incapable of monogamy is only further propagated, since it puts an official stamp of approval from the government that there is something lacking in same sex relationships which does not qualify them for marriage.
While growing up in a social climate where you are getting this strong stereotypes about what you are supposed to be, and then you see the government making legislation denying you rights, and confirming this ideas, you start believing them to inevitable traits you must accept. Opposition is right that there are some individuals who do not face moral quandaries over their sexuality, but unfortunately these individuals are few and far between.
That is a ridiculous justification by the opposition. We concede, on opposition, that there are some stereotypes that do exist. We reject the notion that their existence is predicated on whether or not same-sex marriages are legal.
What the proposition has given us is at best badly articulated pop-psychology. At the same time, we believe that the quandaries faced by homosexuals are as a result of the way in which fellow citizens treat them. Proposition Summary We understand that there is a religious mindset that dislikes same-sex marriage. At no point does the proposition tell you, however, that by permitting same-sex marriage we are not permitting people to believe that.
We have contended that same-sex marriage has no social ill that spreads to the individual who wish to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong other than perhaps discomfort, and we have established that discomfort at a government policy is not basis enough to reject that government policy. In order for the opposition to make the arguments stand specifically, their defense of public opinion and recognition of pluralism as reasons to reject same-sex marriage, rather than just statements about how awesome diverse mindset and majority perceptions are, they would What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
had to demonstrate that the opinions of those who wish to be married to whichever gender they wish are less valid, in an absolute sense, than the opinions of the people who wish to stop them. Opposition has argued that there is no absolute way to determine how morally right same-sex marriage is. That also means there is no way to determine that it is wrong, either.
We have recognized that even as we hold a principle to be universal, its application can be anything but. However, taking a principled stance that something ought to be the case is the first step toward accepting that maybe, when the stars align, when governments come to their senses, when younger segments of the population finally get voting rights, then just maybe things can and will be the case.
We have done significant work to establish why same-sex marriage should be legal. Not only are same-sex couples excluded in societies that choose to keep them outside of the institution of marriage by relegating them to domestic partnerships or civil unions, but the individuals themselves, absent their couple-hood, are impacted.
This translates to the reluctance of homosexual individuals to be freely open about who they are, since they live in a society that has implied there ought to be shame in such an abnormal lifestyle. The society tells them that if they were normal, then they would be getting married to someone of the opposite sex, not the unnatural same-sex partner with whom they might wish to make a life.
We have What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? established the significant amount of government provisions that are denied to homosexual domestic partners or those who are in civil unions. The only example provided by the opposition of rights being equivalent when comparing civil unions and marriage is in South Africa, where couples have the free choice to select either option, even if they are homosexual.
Sure, if both groups have equal access to both institutions, have both of them. But when one group gets access to both civil unions What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? marriagebut another group only gets access to one just the civil union, sorrywe have seen no evidence of legitimate justification for governments essentially segregating access to rights and full-incorporation of minority citizens.
Lastly, the impact upon those individuals who oppose same-sex marriage, or homosexuality as a whole. Oh wait, there is no tangible effect legalizing same sex marriage has on them.
The opposition seems to have forgotten how they wish to frame their arguments. In one breath, they tell us they have a defense of the status quo in their line of argumentation. In another, they attempt to escape each status quo harm identified by the proposition by suggesting they can establish civil unions to be the mechanism by which homosexuals receive the full rights of government.
It would be nice to operate from a world in which we could just make things be the case as well, rather than find a more effective, yet possibly more difficult area of analysis from which to challenge the truth of arguments.
But side opposition decided to evade the most damning arguments we have against the status quo by suggesting we should establish civil unions which have the same rights as marriage, which is nearly a concession of the entire side proposition line.
The opposition provides nothing but logical inconsistency and their case is rife with trivializations, both of the plight of homosexual individuals and of the right to marry. Their claims that proposition is deceptively making a human rights issue out of same sex marriage, and that homosexual individuals have no legitimate expectation to be allowed to marry is clearly misinformed.
Equal rights in marriage is a acknowledged human right a per the U. When these two potential results of same-sex marriage becoming legal are weighed against the harms that exist in the status quo, they do not translate into great importance.
We have taken a stance, as side proposition, towards equality, towards inclusion, and towards social harmony by the inclusion of minority groups. Fundamentally, even though we are different as people, we are still equal in regards to the relationships we have with our government.
This stance might not be put into action by all world governments immediately, but we hold firmly to the idea that if we advocate for equality, we may actually see it materialize, even in unlikely scenarios.
It is for these reasons that we beg to propose. In other words, we do not deem the imposition of the analyses of proposition, on all governments of the world, acceptable. Two key positive arguments which we will develop in support of our contention are as follows: 1. Since the ethical status of homosexuality remains undecided it is acceptable to have different moral and, consequently, legal, attitudes towards same-sex marriage. Their outline suggests a confusing attempt to cover all bases.
Absent such clarity, opposition will reasonably intepret proposition to regard it desirable that tomorrow most countries grant same-sex couples the right to marry, and the rest take very meaningful steps towards doing so. We also do not intend to argue that same-sex marriage is inherently undesirable. Our case is simply, in a sense, but critically so, a defence of legal and moral pluralism, and the importance of a gradual realisation of liberalism.
We clash with this directly, and contend that forcing legislative changes that bring about marginal benefits to small numbers of society on a country that is clearly averse to such changes is itself illiberal. Liberalism is in essence the preference for self determination at the most personal level. It is only through determining the rules that bind one at the level of the state that one can truly practise liberal self determination.
Remember, this is not, as proposition believes, the profound disenfranchising of homosexuals by removing their rights to access economic opportunities or public services and utilities.
First, it is important to recognise that the explanation for why different viewpoints exist on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, is because different people, and governments, have different intuitions about whether or not homosexuality, per se, is acceptable. It is hard to imagine that this debate would be a live one in a world in which everyone agreed that homosexuality is acceptable.
It would follow with moral ease that legal systems should, and would, reflect such moral consensus. Two important questions stem from all of this. Firstly, can there be reasonable moral disagreement on the status of homosexuality? Secondly, what are the implications of question one for the debate on same-sex marriage? We answer the first question in the affirmative. It follows from this that a legal plurality on same-sex marriage is acceptable also. On the conservative end of the spectrum, often informed by religious textual authority, is the view that homosexuality offends the prescriptions of God — or a God-alternative — and since God is the sole source of moral authority, homosexuality is wrong.
Between these end-points, a range of views exist between e. More importantly, it is ok that these diverse views exists. We cannot adjudicate between them. It is precisely because moral views reflect the socio-cultural norms within which they were developed that moral objectivity is elusive.
Either way, we cannot adjudicate between these matters of taste. They are just that — differences in taste.
Child Marriage in the United States
Similarly, moral intuitions are just reflections of moral taste between persons, and governments, around What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? world. Thefore, there can be, and indeed there is, reasonable disagreement on whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable. After all, there is an important relationship between law and morality: the legitimacy of a legal system partly derives from reflecting the social mores of the citizens who are subject to that legal system.
This is not to say that law making process is a crude matter of doing a headcount of the views of citizens. Of course if the views of a citizenship is beyond the pale, then a progressive legal system could challenge it.
If, for example, 90% of a citizenry thought that twins should be killed, it would be hard to argue that a legal system should unthinkingly reflect this wish. However, homosexuality is not a matter in respect of which ethical disagreements are so easily solved. It is ok for a view that regards homosexuality as immoral to exist. If this is conceded — as it surely must be — then it is ok for a legal system in a country, through whatever the law-making processes are that exist in that country — to reflect this view in its policy or not on same-sex marriage.
It follows that moral and legal pluralism in relation to same-sex marriage is acceptable. We do however, reject the idea that government should also be conflicted between these ethics.
Similarly, while marriage may be religiously derived, it does not stand as a singularly religious institution today, and therefore it need not conform to religious principles. Civil marriages are perfectly legal, and popular, and have the exact same status and terminology as ones done in a religious setting.
In fact, civil registration is necessary for marriage, the presence of a religious figure is not. Therefore a secular government has no choice but to regard homosexuality within a value ethics, not a religious ethics, and deem it such. By decriminalizing and providing safeguards against discrimination based on sexuality, most governments have already affirmed this. No moral ambiguity remains for purposes of legislation.
Furthermore, we find is ironic that the opposition would argue for plurality, while at the same time taking the stance that a majorities view should be allowed to ban a minorities rights. By allowing same sex marriage but not forcing it upon heterosexual Christians like opposition seems to believethe government allows for the plurality of action and accommodate both parties. By restricting this right, we are not being pluralistic, we are being majoritarian.
The opposition has yet to define one demonstrable harm that comes from the legality of same-sex marriage. The opposition misses the distinction between the public results of permitting same-sex marriage and the private impacts of the action.
There are a multitude of opinions regarding relationships, but we leave private individuals to determine for themselves how to conduct their lives without government interference. Recently, the High Court of Delhi in India overturned a century-and-a-half old anti-sodomy law, which not only shows governments can get out of the bedroom, but that progressive societies can change their minds about what was once ethically unacceptable.
The global trend has been an expansion of rights, and we see no clear reason not to take a firm stance and promote the rights expand further. The very aim of promoting the interests of gay persons will likely be harmed by this proposition. We contend that substantive equality for homosexuality is more important than formal equality. While the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the former does not necessarily bring about the latter, nor is the latter predicated on the former.
As we have already suggested, it is incumbent upon proposition to show that formal equality brings about substantive equality; we believe that too progressive formal equality can actually damage our attempt to gain substantive equality for homosexuals. A good case study is, in fact, South Africa. Yet, despite this formal equality enjoyed by gay South Africans, there has been a social backlash. Same-sex marriage has fuelled, rather than stemmed, these homophobic patterns.
Same-sex marriage, as our case study shows, is neither necessary nor sufficient to make environments safer for gay persons; indeed, same-sex marriage can militate against that aim in many contexts, liberal societies included. Corrective rape is not caused by same-sex marriages. In the links the opposition posted, we see incidents of rape in school of outed unmarried individuals. It affords same-sex couple legal stature and recognition in a very homophobic atmosphere.
Indeed, more immediate legal action continues to be called for from the gay community in South Africa. This threatens to be funny, but in the end simply leaves a substantive argument of ours wholly intact.
The principle that opposition defends is that the moral legitimacy of a legal system depends in part on taking seriously the moral preferences of its citizenry, hence our clash of moral and legal pluralism. Besides, the debate about evolution vs. Evidence in What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
of evolution is an empirical matter, and the creationism What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?, though partly principled, has to answer the empiricism of evoultion.
The same-sex marriage debate is fundamentally a normative ethical one. Our argument that law making should take seriously the moral preferences of those subjected to its laws, and social policies, stand.
Moral and legal pluralism in relation to same-sex marriage, follows. These can be whittled down to the following claims: 1 States can ignore views that have a religious aetiology when making laws and deciding social policies; 2 Specifically in relation to homosexuality, governments need not be morally agnostic as to whether or not homosexuality — and, hence, same-sex marriage — is acceptable; 3 Since marriage, in its civil guise, bears no necessary or important relation to religious marriage ceremonies, civil marriage should not be exclusive — at most it is religious praxis that need protection, which laws already provide for.
After lengthy exegeses by proposition on red herrings such as the fate of intersexed persons, Team South Africa is excited by the first, abeit belated, real argument that speaks directly to the institution of marriage per se claim 3 above rather than tangential, wider social issues. We will deal with the three claims in turn. We deal with the first one below, and list the other two sets of responses separately, for ease of reading.
We never claimed that to be the case, nor would we do so. In a sense — and we think that this was done in good faith — proposition wrongly assumes that opposition is endorsing the content of religious ethics. We are endorsing the right of religious ethical views, should they dominate the moral dialectic in a country, to find expression in public policy. The assumption that liberalism is devoid of moral content is popular but not accurate.
Proposition wants to have their cake and eat it. They start off accepting that a plurality of moral views on homosexuality exist but then assert that homosexuality is acceptable.
This assertion does not engage the pluralism they acknowledge, it simply by-passes it by fiat. Opposition is not arguing, as we had said before but which must have fallen on closed eyes, that homosexuality is immoral. We are agnostic on the issue because there is no moral objectivity that can settle the issue.
Proposition has tried to make their case by framing it in terms of emotive human rights language. That is deceptive — clever, but worthy of the label deception. Of course there is a difference between what should be state-sanctioned, and what should be allowed to exist in private.
Yes, in private, it is ok for someone to believe that twins should be killed but no state should sanction this view. In this kind of case, both teams would be happy, presumably, to endorse a disconnect between public policy and private belief. Yes, related issues, such as the right to not be dismissed at work What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? ill-treated at work, on the basis of your orientation, constitute clear cases of human rights abuses.
Same-sex marriage is not a human rights issue. Remember, this debate is not place-set in a particular country. Hence, in opposition, as we have done here, and throughout our rebuttal and positive matter, we are articulating why a diversity of views between countries exist, will continue to do so, and why this is ok Proposition finally came up with a direct piece of argument to make the letter of the motion come alive in the dying moments of the debate — civil marriage is What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
non-religious institution by its very nature and therefore moral offence anyone would take at the thought of allowing gay persons to access the institution of civil marriage, should be ignored. Both sides are in agreement here.
It seems clear to us that unless there is an overriding moral reason to change the operation of an institution, the mere fact of exclusion does not constitute a reason, surely? But such an expectation, it would appear, rests on a demand to access the fruits and burdens that come with institution.
But if those associated goods can be distributed in equal measure, and same quality, through another mechanism, then the putative entitlement to enter that civil institution, falls away. Mechanism such as civil unions achieve the best of all possible worlds. On the one hand, they allow laws to reflect public mores by maintaining marriage What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?
an exclusive civil institution in places where that is desired by the majority. At the same time, they ensure that gay persons are not — wrongly — excluded from the associated rights and benefits of marriage.
Again moral and legal pluralism comes out sensible, and the facist imposition of liberal individualism on all societies in the universe comes out decidedly illiberal. In many cases this will, indeed, be the case — after all, hate crimes preceded same-sex marriage in South Africa. It is this latter reality that constitutes the social backlash. Tellingly, proposition concedes this point!! It affords same-sex couple legal stature and recognition in a very homophobic atmosphere.
They should not — we assume prop to be saying here — ignore what most people think. On team opposition we decided to focus the debate on the two central questions at stake: Why is marriage important, and what will the consequences be if we legalize same-sex marriages? They mentioned, albeit fleetingly, that marriage brings to the couple a number of legal rights that are otherwise unattainable.
If this is all the substantive value that proposition could show, it seems that their case is already on shaky ground. In response to proposition we argued that marriage has tremendous socio-cultural and religious value to a large portion of most populations. This is evidenced by the fact that in most countries there is a strong majority that rejects the very notion of same-sex marriage.
We then added extra meat to the discussion by considering the role of the What is the legal age for marriage in Africa? and the role of public opinion. The first issue, then, clearly falls to team opposition. On team opposition we articulated, from the very start, that it is substantive equality that really matters. This argument, which was justified by analogy only and no actual analysis of the example of marriagewas dismantled rather thoroughly by team opposition.
We showed that the analogies presented by proposition were in fact entirely and absolutely disanalagous, and that in a vast number of cases the state has not acted as a pathfinder at all. The only other argument made by proposition, that suggested something similar, was their analysis of stereotyping.
This failure is symptomatic of the grand failure of their case — to show why it is that legalizing same-sex marriage is of particular importance. It is clear, then that the second question was also answered, most convincingly, by team opposition. Imagine making being in love illegal because it makes you uncomfortable.
You think it will kill human population? Surrogates are a thing and honestly human population control is a good thing, and there are plenty of children needing to be adopted instead of straight people constantly humping crowding the world. Even though we humans have cars, clothing, and are the definition of not What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?. The no argument is making points that are downright irrelevant and imply -if not state- that legalising homosexual marriage will somehow have a negative impact on everyone else.
The no argument makes it seem that there are no legitimate defence arguments behind the yes argument because is sticks to the basis it is built around. How is it that by staying true to the argument at hand and not criticizing a thousand tiny points that are in-themselves wrong anyway you open yourself up to judgement. The only thing marriage equality will effect is equality in general. Look at the stories of homosexuals who have been in love for years and only wish to get married.
A task that would be simple for straight couples. Explain to them why their love is ineligible for marriage. The fact is that even with your useless arguments that attack either irrelevant or untrue arguments most people still agree that marriage equality is the best option. Firstly you have to challenge perceptions on this.
I feel all people are equal. The right to love one another is something all people should experience. It stops it being taboo. Thus taking an all welcome, all Including, non judgemental What is the legal age for marriage in Africa?.
Why are people getting so heated on something that wont even affect anyone except the couple, whatsoever? Have you ever thought about what other people believe in? There are so many religions in this world, who even knows which one is real, and if they are real at all. What is so wrong with Gay marriage?
If there is a law against discrimination, why is the government discrimanating homosexuals? Far too much time is wasted on this complete non-issue, which is a simple matter of discrimination and equality. There are far more important issues affecting the country and the world than this incredibly trivial matter.
Just get it sorted — the self-appointed morality police will soon find something else to be outraged about.