So you’re agreeing with me but you still have to argue? Having the conversation that these are two separate ideas instead of calling people homophobic bigots is a better way to change people’s mind no?
And there are Muslims in Taiwan. Not a whole bunch but there are.
OK, there is a percentage of the foreign brides who are Muslim and have acquired ROC citizenship.
ROC veterans who came in 49 from Muslim majority regions. You can tell who they are by their last names.
Still, not a significant portion from the general population of voters. the ones making noise and opposing are the so called Christian organizations. So far, I haven´t seen a full page ad on local papers opposing same sex marriage paid by any Muslim organization, local or otherwise.
This is a human right issue. A legal issue. Not a religious issue. To set the stage, I will give you the example of the old country. Any marriage outside of teh Catholic church was considered illegal. No divorce allowed.
I really don’t think marriage is a human right. But there’s another conversation for that.
My point being, it’s ridiculous to blame 4-% of the population for causing the results of referendum. And that if you want to change peoples minds, calling them homophobic bigots is not going to help.
It is not even 4%. The 0.002 percent responsible for the hate are not even Taiwan citizens and shouldn´t be meddling with these matters. And I do not mean us. I mean the ones putting millions into hate campaigns. Those I have an issue with because they are meddling “homophobics” who are most of the time closetted homosexuals themselves. They attack not out of religious faith but of fear of confronting their own sexuality. And exporting those fears is an issue, especially in this era of false news where media is manipulated.
As we can see, the voting was rigged by missinformation and phrasing the ballot choices in a complicated way.
Again, from a legal point of view, same sex marriage is necessary in order to give a neglected section of the population the right to inherit, manage each others economic affairs as required, invest, take health decisions for and with their partners, like anybody else. That is teh core of the matter. This right has been denied in other places and times because of race and religion and those barriers were deemed illegal and as such do not exist in Taiwan. The legal issue at core has respecting a partnership. How can a corporation have more rights that a pair of human beings?
First of all, I’m not saying anyone is or isn’t a bigot.
You want people to make a “distinction between state approved marriage and the ceremonial Christian marriage”. But there’s no such thing in Taiwan, legally speaking, as religious marriage, so why are you trying to ram an open door?
Should (legally valid) religious marriage be created?
So you’re agreeing with me but you still have to argue? 
In case you missed the text in the onebox, the Muslim population in Taiwan is approximately 60,000 citizens and 180,000 foreigners, the point being, any speculation about how “the majority of Muslims in Taiwan” (as distinct from Taiwanese Muslims) vote in any referendum or election should take that into consideration.
(While we’re at it, Muslims are less than 0.3% of citizens, about 23% of foreigners, and about 1% of citizens and foreigners combined, if the numbers supplied by the government are accurate. I assume those numbers don’t include “escaped foreigners”.)
On another note, since you’re so upset by feminists not protesting gender inequality in conscription (even though you supposedly don’t care), what do you think of gender inequality in the minimum age for marriage? It’s 18 for men boys, 16 for women girls. (Anyone under 20 is a minor and therefore requires special permission.) Under the same sex marriage relationship law, it’s 18, period.
I doubt we’ll see any families petitioning for the right to marry their underage daughters to each other, but objectively speaking it’s discrimination against lesbians… or rather in their favor, if a low minimum age is a bad thing. But whether the age should be 16 or 18, making it uniformly 18 for gay marriage relationships is a step towards gender equality, right?
Yes, for anyone who missed it:
I’m not saying you are. I’m saying the reaction towards christians after the referendum is not helpful and will just turn people away or double down. Why not make the case that it is two different things to change people’s minds. That’s what would be most convincing for me. Saying hey, you can have your belief in that Marriage is between a man and woman, but this is a different thing. You won’t be disobeying God’s word if you vote yes. Because it is a big deal to go against God’s word for christians, try to think of it from this perspective.
Yeah, the majority of muslims in taiwan that can vote…why would I talk about the ones that can’t vote…I don’t understand your point, no shit there is none ROC nationals who are muslims just as there are none ROC national Hindus or whatever.
Don’t really care.
The phrasing of the referendum question was about the Civil Code, wasn’t it? The CC doesn’t mention religion anywhere in its 1000+ articles.
Maybe because you phrased it carelessly and as if it had never occurred to you that they outnumber the ones who can vote 3:1? Just a thought.
Your words: you “don’t really care” about gender inequality in Taiwanese law. I’m glad we finally cleared that up. 
That is what i’m saying…the whole entire time. I never said it did, I’m just pointing out a way to convince people…
I said i don’t care about the age of marriage. DOn’t put words in my mouth.
No, you just don’t read.
Try to take a min a read, i know you love to argue.
You said “don’t really care” in response to my question about gender inequality in the minimum age for marriage. That’s gender inequality in the law. Do you care about it or not?
If I wanted to be cynical, I would say you care about gender equality in the law when it seems to affect men negatively and don’t care when it doesn’t. For some reason, when feminists do that the other way around, it upsets you terribly.
If you insist…
As I said, they (the majority of Muslims in Taiwan) can’t vote. Try to take a minute to read. I know you love to argue. 
Btw, if you have information about how Taiwanese Muslims voted (or abstained from voting) on this or any other issue, you’re welcome to share it.
All you did was say there are muslims that can’t vote…why would I talk about the muslims that can’t vote…voting.
Because it’s not what we are talking about.
No, I said the majority of Muslims in Taiwan can’t vote. That’s an objective fact. If you asked how the majority of whites in Taiwan voted, I would point out the same thing about them.
You want to take it to another thread? Fine, no problem.
In the meantime, it remains an objective fact that under the proposed new law, men and women (or rather boys and girls) are more equal than they are under the existing Civil Code, for whatever that’s worth.
But again, why would I talk about people voting that can’t vote…If i said how the whites in Taiwan voted…most people would understand i’m talking about the ones that can vote and voted. But you…love love love to find little details to argue.
And how many times have you linked the why do men get bashed thread…wow. You link threads months and years ago from me almost daily it seems. It’s a bit weird now.
We shouldn’t take such things for granted. 
Are you keeping track of the number of times I’ve linked that thread? That might be a bit weird, but whatever. 
It’s a very long, and at times quite interesting thread. If it were worth forgetting about, it would have been Temped and disappeared.
You once said (I’m not going to look for the post) something like current year Andrew is so different from 2016 Andrew because back then I was anti-Trump, but now I get it. Maybe your thoughts on other issues will also evolve. 
you do it daily with me on topics that have nothing to do with the subject.
Gender issues are inextricably linked with LGBT issues, and this is the LGBT forum, so I don’t agree that it has “nothing to do with the subject”.
If you feel unfairly treated in general or in specific topics, you are welcome to complain in Feedback or by private message.
At last the voice of reason.
Living in a heathen nation, one must understand that heathens have different perspectives, and these perspectives should be respected.
Christian missionaries will probably not agree; including those who wear magic underpants and have multiple wives.
Actually Chinese people have had multiple wives more recently than the main group of LDS Mormons.
Oh god, you just described my bosses…the horror.
There are two major issues with this version of “civil union”.
It is specified in this version that a civil union can only be between 2 Taiwanese citizens.
Equally unreasonable, a couple under this civil union act can only adopt children from their relatives.
WTF?