Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa

Mediation Case: 2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: IZAK 11:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Same-sex marriage in South Africa and Talk:Same-sex marriage in South Africa


 * Who's involved?
 * User:IZAK has repeatedly tried to insert the views of traditional religion that would explain the opposition of mainstream religious groups to same-sex marriages in South Africa, starting with the talk page:     . This has been opposed by the editors of that article thus far who resent IZAK's interference, they react as if they "own" the contents of the article and will not allow him to add comments to its talk page or add material to the body of the article from a different (i.e. religious) perspective. IZAK's comments and edits have been deleted from the article's talk page by: an anonymous user ; User:Brian0918 (twice)  ; User:KeeperHL (probably a sock-puppet, who only registered to delete IZAK's comments) . IZAK contributed and edited the article   adding a section on "Religious roots of the opposition to same-sex marriages", but this was arbitrarily deleted without discussion by User:JBKramer who claimed that the edits were "just plain made up"


 * What's going on?
 * IZAK wishes to have a dialogue but other editors use threatening language, and in violation of Assume good faith have threatened and "warned" him  and warned about "undoing other people's edits" when IZAK's edits are the only ones that being "undone"


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * IZAK would like to have his views and edits discussed and not deleted.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Open discussion is fine. IZAK 11:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * The edit I removed violated WP:OR, as it did not cite it's sources. I will continue to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of any other outcome, and as such, I will not participate in any mediation on this issue. JBKramer 12:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of it was "Original Research"?, the article itself describes religious opposition to same-sex marriages in South Africa. Is quoting only one verse from the Bible that condemns homosexuality explicitly (on the article's talk page, yet) "original research? The brusque attitude is telling, and disappointing. IZAK 12:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It made a number of claims about South Africans, but it did not cite sources for those claims. JBKramer 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok here goes: Some obvious examples to back me up, and they should now be inserted into the article because they are facts, and not "OR" : (1) "But, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, president of the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference, said the bill would be a blow against democracy. 'The impression we got is that there is overwhelming opposition to this bill from people throughout South Africa,' he told South Africa's Daily News before the vote. African Christian Democratic Party leader Reverend Kenneth Meshoe told MPs that those who voted for same-sex marriages would face divine wrath" see S Africa approves same-sex unions (2) "Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" see South Africa: Church Reaffirms Opposition to Same-Sex Unions (3) "June 7, 2006: Several Christian organisations and churches have petitioned the government and Minister of Justice Brigitte Mabandla not to redefine the institution of marriage in order to incorporate same-sex marriage as part of the definition. Pastor Errol Naidoo argues that marriage is an institution given by God and not the state" see allowing gay marriage will undermine the foundation of our society (4) 19-October-2006 -- ZENIT.org News Agency CARDINAL RESTATES OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX UNIONS, SAYS LEGALIZATION WILL UNDERMINE COMMON GOOD (5) "Meanwhile, the Marriage Alliance of South Africa, said to represent 20 million Christians of various denominations, has called for an amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage as a heterosexual institution. This comes after the Constitutional Court ordered parliament to correct defects it considered invalid in the statutory and common-law definitions of marriage of same sex couples not enjoying the same status and benefits coupled with responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples. The church leaders of various faiths, drawn together over an issue that could determine the future of marriage in the country. Their concern is that the traditional concept of marriage could be changed to include same sex partnerships. Among the proposals is for parliament to consider a new law for civil or same sex partnerships and unions. The religious leaders says they view the matter in a serious light - enough to call on 20 million Christians and all South Africans to support simultaneous marches in seven major cities next month. Additional reporting - Reuters" see  SABC. IZAK 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These are just five good examples of the point I am trying to convey and which is being dismissed simply because a new law was created a few days ago. Hundreds of years of religious teachings in South Africa cannot be ignored or thrown overboard by people who have harsh anti-religious or atheistic POVs. IZAK 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Desmond Tutu would be delighted to hear he has an anti-religious or atheistic POV (which, by the way?). Fact is, Wikipedia talk pages aren't meant for anyone's soapboxing (which "Shame on South Africa!" certainly is).  A comment saying "Hurrah to South Africa for their adoption of basic human rights!" would be just as off-topic and should also be deleted.  Why single out South Africa anyway?  Morwen - Talk 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Morwen: The subject is South Africa, because that's something I know about. I would not advise editors to edit articles about subject they know nothing or little about. As for Bishop Tutu, he does not speak for all Christianity nor for all Christians, his own Church (Anglican) does not endorse his personal views. That he enjoys aligning himself with communists and secular social revolutionaries is his business, but that does not make him a model to be held up to the world as if to say, "well Tutu does it or says it" which is not an argument. The question is indeed, how can Tutu justify his stand, is he a hypocrite? This needs an answer. An expression like "Shame on South Africa" is the essence of the view stemming from the Biblical Judeo-Christian tradition, including the Churches and religious bodies that are both angered and embarrased that the (secular) South African government should pass such a law, as I have amply noted and provided the links to prove this. What do you think the Churches' and other religious groups opposition to same-sex marriages are based on? "Narrow-mindedness" and "homophobia"? or the knowledge that the Bible specifically condemns and bans homosexuality, as clearly stated in the verse from Leviticus 18:22: "DO NOT LIE WITH A MALE AS YOU WOULD WITH A WOMAN, SINCE THIS IS A DISGUSTING PERVERSION" which then automatically means, according to its literal meaning and logic: "Shame on South Africa" as this now violates the Bible's prohibition which specifically forbids male homosexuality with the passage of a law which gives public sanction to behaviour that goes against the teachings of the Bible accepted by almost all Christians and religious people in South Africa. Finally, this discussion is not about what Tutu or anyone thinks, it's about how this new law has violated a central pillar of the 2,000 year old Judeo-Christian tradition. (In the case of Judaism, it's even longer and goes back to God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded in the book of Genesis.) IZAK 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this is neither here nor there regarding this issue, but I'm curious: Where does it say anywhere that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed based on the sin of homosexuality?? There are reasons given all over T'nach for the destruction (arrogance and pride being the most frequent) and it never says one word about homosexuality. Yes, there's a Rashi that says that the people of sodom wanted to commit homosexual rape against Lot's guests, but: (1) Rashi doesn't say that's why they were destroyed; and (2) Gang-raping a guest in the city is a far cry from consensual homosexual sex. Look, I'm not defending homosexual behavior. I'm as frum as you are and I know the score, but I'm confused and nonplussed by this whole oft-repeated idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed based on the sin of homosexuality. Sh76us 03:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your views. However, this is not the place to epxress them. Try rereading No Original Research. BTW, there are a lot of quotations we can find from the bible. See this page for some examples. Also, do you plan to express your moral outrage at our slavery article? Sadly, all countries I know of currently forbid the beating of slaves to the point of incapitation for two days (indeed they forbid the keeping of slaves). However the bible is quite clear: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]." Nil Einne 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)