There has been quite a bit of furor over here about the recent ruling by our Supreme Court of Appeal to legalise gay marriage. It all seems mostly pointless to me. Our constitution clearly states:

The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

With a nice summary coming from Edwin Cameron (Judge of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa), courtesy of Neil:

the focus in this case falls on the intrinsic nature of marriage, and the question is whether any aspect of same-sex relationships justifies excluding gays and lesbians from it. What the Constitution asks in such a case is that we look beyond the unavoidable specificities of our condition - such as race, gender and sexual orientation - and consider our intrinsic human capacities and what they render possible for all of us. In this case, the question is whether the capacity for commitment, and the ability to love and nurture and honour and sustain, transcends the incidental fact of sexual orientation.

So what's the problem? Well the ACDP called for a referendum. Who the hell asks the majority to represent the minority on an issue that only affects the minority? Then again I wrote the ACDP off when I saw that their local political offices are shared with a gun reseller because they are THAT pro-gun. Now this is the good bit, the DA "would not take a stand as it was a moral issue". What the hell do they think they are there to do?

Frankly I can't see any good arguments as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Disallowing it won't stop people from being homosexual and will only encourage long-term monogamous relationships.

Now I am a Christian but I have serious difficulty seeing anything wrong with homosexuality. I once wrote an essay on it for philosophy I.