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

What exactly is the dispute?

On this matter I am politically on the opposite side from IZAK, but if I read him correctly he has a point on some of this. The sources he cites are relevant to the topic at hand, and some of this should be mentioned in the article.

On the other hand, I don't see the legitimacy of the Wikipedia quoting scripture on the matter, although we can cite someone else quoting scripture. Much though it bothers IZAK, deciding that a particular passage of scripture is relevant to a particular situation is not Wikipedia's job. Nor is scripture at all clearly the motivation, rather than a pretext, for the religious position: you don't see millions of religious South Africans up in arms over stores carrying cotton-poly shirts, even though the condemnation in Leviticus of mixing fibers is equally unequivocal (and IZAK, being Orthodox, probably considers both equally the Law; I've never asked him). Not that this last belongs in the arcticle without attribution to a relevant commentator, either, but I'm just trying to point out that the fact that someone invokes scripture or even scriptural literalism does not always mean that is what is actually going on. Their claim is worthy of being reported, but one cannot assume that they are even completely accurate in describing their own motivation.

It would be very helpful if IZAK would make a bullet list of points, with citation, that he thinks the article shoudl contain, but others are disagreeing. - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a passer-by can toss in his five cents: I concur with Jmabel to some extent. As in many cases, this may be partially a case where the message is obscured by the messenger's delivery. The best position I can see IZAK taking is that this article should contain a controversy section. (I'm not at all sure it needs one - it's clear that gay marriage is controversial, and there's no need to discuss the controversy in every article. As written, this page is a good example of clinical, neutral reporting on an event - I think it's brilliantly written as is and wouldn't add to it. But that's just my opinion.)

However, assuming that we should add a controversy section at all, IZAK is probably not the person to write one. The controversy sections he's written here have been unencyclopedic discourses on his opinion. They'll never be NPOV - they're POV at the core.

So the only question I see that's worth discussing is whether this article should have a controversy section written by someone else. That's what I think should be discussed on the article's talk page. IZAK is bothered by the removal of his comments there, but his comments were not along the lines of "we should have a controversy section." They were rants, frankly - not about the article but about the Bible. This isn't the place, and they were properly removed. My suggestion to everyone else is to let IZAK discuss the "controversy section" issue if he can stick to that. My suggestion to IZAK is to talk about the article, and avoid going off onto other topics. I think that's far more likely to achieve consensus.--TheOtherBob 18:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues here. I don't personally have a problem with a controversy section provided it is sourced an appropriate. We can probably take our heed from existing articles here such as Canada etc. The problem is, that IZAK appears to be convinced we should cover in detail the religious arguments against homosexuality. This is OT and largely irrelevant. We already cover it sufficiently in other articles. If we can get adequete sources, we can mention there was widespread opposition (if this is true) partially because of religios reasons. We can then include some of the noteable examples of opposition. Quoting bible passages, saying shame on South Africa etc doesn't help and just antagonises people. Even detailed breakdowns of the South African religious affinity is unnecessary. Again it's largely irrelevant. This is something that's covered in other articles. Nil Einne 14:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK responds

Ok, there are two things that need to be separated here right off the bat, one what happened on the talk page and two what is disputed in the body of the article itself!

Let's deal with one first, it's that editors violently object to the comments that I made [1] - [2] on the talk page: "Shame on South Africa" citing the Biblical verse (and not "my" ideas -- I did not invent the Bible, I promise!) in Leviticus 18:22 [3] that condemns male homosexuality -- I can't help it, it's in the Bible, and billions of Christians (not to mention Orthodox Jews) do have allegiance to it. Note, that I am not speaking merely as an Orthodox Jew -- but I am pointing out the stance of basically all mainstrean churches, a position that they have held for 2,000 years or so. Also Joe, the prohibition against homosexuality is universal and applies to all humanity, whereas the prohibition not to wear garments of mixed linen and wool, known as shatnez only applies to Jews as one of the 613 mitzvot (commandments). Now on the talk page, I admit I was shooting from the hip by placing the very source of the religious opposition to the new same-sex law in an "in your face" yet frank, true, and accurate manner, but I was surprised that it led to a flurry of deletions and threats against me (see my talk page: User talk:IZAK#Shame on you! and User talk:IZAK#Your edits to Talk:Same-sex marriage in South Africa) that editors were not appreciating it. (BTW, Why is it that Wikipedia articles about the Bible have so many views from so many non-religious perspectives, but that when the reverse is done on an important common subject, all hell breaks loose?) Anyhow, people just could not tolerate my comment, but why they had to delete it, I can't fathom when just a clear protest or disagreement would have been enough. So much for talk page comments and threats.
So then we come to the second thing, and that is that I wrote a very NPOV entry into the body of the article, that did not cite any verses or scripture but based on my extensive knowledge and study of South Africa (not like many knee-jerk anti-Apartheid people out there who think that South African history and society begins with the end of Apartheid, when it is only a chapter in a very long book.) Initially, I did cite one important CIA source that over 80% of all South Africans are affiliated with Christian denominations. My entry was a brief summary, with many links to related Wikipedia articles on the same topic of religious affiliations of South Africans, and of the roots of the religious opposition to same-sex-marriages, which in any case the article mentions. A serious flaw of the article is that it is written in "timeline" fashion, as if it were dealing with some sort of "inevitable great historic triumph" when nothing could be further from the truth, because the same-sex marriage law was universally opposed by all religious groups, just that they do not control the levers of power in the state which is made up of the former ANC and South African Communist Party members who are all hostile to organized religion and its views. At any rate the follwoing is what I contributed [4] :

Religious roots of the opposition to same-sex marriages

Thus far, the push to create same-sex marriages in South Africa would amount to civil unions devoid of any religious sanction. Over 80% of South Africans belong to a religious group: (Zion Christian 11.1%, Pentecostal/Charismatic 8.2%, Catholic 7.1%, Methodist 6.8%, Dutch Reformed 6.7%, Anglican 3.8%, other Christian 36%, Islam 1.5%, other 2.3%, unspecified 1.4%, none 15.1% - 2001 census <ref>{{cite web | title= Official CIA statistics | url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html | accessdate= November 16 | accessyear= 2006 }}</ref>.)

Indeed, the broader public debate over the rejection or acceptance of same-sex marriage by the general public in South Africa, as noted above, requires an understanding of the degree to which South Africa's various population groups have had a historical connection to mainstream Christianity, Islam, and other religions, all of which reject the notion of same-sex marriage as being anti-Biblical or anti-religious. While individuals such as Desmond Tutu may have their personal views, they are not regarded as the definitive spokespeople for Christianity. (See Homosexuality and Christianity.)

The majority of South Africans belong to Christian churches, such as to the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa, Anglican Church of Southern Africa, Methodist Church of Southern Africa, the Zionist Churches, Roman Catholicism in South Africa and Afrikaner Calvinism, all of which have neither condoned nor accepted same-sex marriages in their congregations.

The Muslims in South Africa are uniformly opposed to accepting same-sex marriages, in keeping with Islamic teachings and Islamic countries world-wide. (See Homosexuality and Islam.) Jewish South Africans who are mostly alligned with Orthodox Judaism are opposed to the notion and practice of same-sex-marriages. (See Homosexuality and Judaism.)

It is therefore no surprise that many religious groups have opposed the proposed law.

Now the above was then deleted [5] by User:JBKramer who whisked it away with the silly aside that it's "just plain made up." After I decided to bring this matter to the Mediation Cabal for MEDIATION, User:JBKramer responds that "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." [6] and "It made a number of claims about South Africans, but it did not cite sources for those claims" [7]

To which I responded with the following (easily obtainbale by doing Google simple Googling): [8] - [9]:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's what I wrote on the main page of this attempt at mediation, and here is where I am at, at this point in time: I wish to incorporate and cite the material above into what I wrote into the body of the article. I have no objection if it's called a "Controversy section" or "Religious opposition to same-sex marriages" and perhaps it should become an article in its own right which can be a positive outcome of this debate: Religious views on same sex-marriage in South Africa, but this cannot be brushed off by comments that I have heard so far. Finally, we have all been taught that NPOV does NOT mean "No point of view" and I am as much a "victim" of my world view as any other human being out there in the world, yet I do know how to write and adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, see also Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Thanks for your feedback and patience. IZAK 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case still open?

It appears that this case is still open, which seems to me is unduly slow process. Is there any way of speeding it up? --Dweller 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt... Addhoc 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm unfamiliar with this process. I can't see any "result"? --Dweller 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MEDCAB page is archived by a bot, the next run should tidy away the file. Addhoc 23:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant the result of the mediation! I can't see any resolution. --Dweller 10:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]