Same-sex marriage legislation


#61

If we’re going to get all Roman about it, I was really just saying “nulla poena sine lege”. There is literally no law (at least in most civilized countries) that forbids two men or two women from performing a marriage ceremony and adhering to all of the customary duties of marriage. Consider the rather bizarre tradition of marrying dead people. This is not in any sense legally binding (because a basic principle of law is that it applies only to living people), but people do it anyway.

IMO marriage (the relationship itself) can be nothing but spiritual. Where the State is involved, it can do nothing but harm. If I were being really cynical, I might suggest the only purpose of marriage is to provide employment for divorce lawyers. But I do realise that’s only my opinion, and that some people do crave the approval of Society At Large, or of their elders and betters.

The problem here is that it should not. What I mean is, one should not have to get married in order to get various “privileges” related to social security, taxation, travel, etc. The whole concept is stupid. Another way of looking at it is that these issues are discriminatory against single people in general (or people who the law deems to be single), not homosexuals specifically.

All kinds of people are denied that chance, for completely arbitrary reasons. Single men have zero chance of adopting, even though it is legally permitted in many places. Single women only a slightly higher chance. Very young or very old people will be denied. Being married is not the one and only qualification: the authorities are pretty much at liberty to say “no” to anyone they choose. This is done to safeguard the wellbeing of the child. They probably eliminate far too many potentially-good parents, but they err on the side of extreme conservatism because a mistake could be disastrous.


#62

No its not obvious. The Irish didn’t “had to” do anything. And I still have no idea what your point was.


#63

Yes there are alternatives: Changing the law. Its what elected politicians do all the time, and in a referendum it is what the electorate does.


#64

[quote=“finley, post:57, topic:85358, full:true”]

Actually, there is. Freedom of disposition is mostly a common law thing, which means it’s a foreign concept in many countries/regions, including Taiwan.

Come to think of it, why would we need a government for anything? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#65

My friend on his Facebook said there are many legislations more important than this one makes me angry, he believes in Christ, so the first reason makes angry is that why not Same-sex marriage unimportant because you enjoy your rights and don’t care about others?

I know the reason he posted this article, he didn’t mention anything about Christian, but my intuition is that it must related about his religion. How horrible about the stereotype…


#66

Buddhist Bhikkhuni (female monk) Master Zhaohui, previously quite controversial in her defend of Tzuchi organization, appeared in a same-sex marriage legislation public hearing. Her support of same-sex marriage is now winning her support from young people who previously hated her guts. I suspect these young people have trouble even remembering who she is.

Master Zhaohui has been a pioneer in woman rights, human rights and labor welfare here in Taiwan. Her position in Taiwan’s Buddhist community is quite rare.

She defended Tzuchi probably out of camaraderie. However, Tzuchi’s unwillingness to be more transparent and insisting developing illegal land kind of doomed her argument.

Social issues are more Master Zhaohui’s home court, so it’s no surprise she is winning some deserving respect.