Gay Marriage Part 3 - Taiwan's Diverse Formation of Family Union Law

The former asked students to choose which options were “reasonable arguments” for opposing same sex marriage legislation. Option A was, “the rights of pre-adolescent children ought to be respected; children should not be denied the right to being born into a mainstream family format.” Option B was, “The world as a whole is yet to reach a consensus on the values involved in this issue; Taiwan should not hastily attempt to change the situation.” Option C was, “Same sex marriage will be controversial and will lead to tensions and conflict, and this will increase social costs.” Option D was, “Single-partner homosexual relations will lead to more AIDS patients and cause a fall in the birth rate, with major national security implications.” Finally, option E was, “There is scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic mutation with little chance of righting itself. Its proliferation should therefore be prevented through prohibiting [same sex] marriage. In the test, the correct answers were A, B and C.

I’d like to know how they define a “reasonable argument”.

Dude came across some of the anti-equality folks yesterday at the McDonald’s on Linsen and Zhongxiao, snapped a shot of them, and was as a result mobbed, cornered, assaulted and threatened until the police came. Of course, the police, instead of worrying themselves with nagging details like assault, theft and illegal detainment, addressed the larger issue of “but why did you take that perfectly legal photo?”

The debate is currently being held at the Constitutional Court now and the Minister of Justice is a vomit-inducing retarded cunt. Pathetic.

It seems like not many people are familiar with the law as it pertains to public photographing/filming. I wonder if that includes the police.

First, a few words from the Minister of Justice:

“For thousands of years in the nation’s history, society has
instituted traditions and codes of conduct regarding marriage. Has there ever been a cultural institution or social phenomenon for same-sex marriage?” Chiu said.

“Without a doubt, there has been none,” Chiu said.

He then quoted one section of the Chinese classic I Ching (易經), also known as the Book of Changes, which reads: “With the existence of the earth and the sky, there came all living things. With the existence of the earth and the sky, there came men and women,” which he said illustrates that Chinese marriage traditions have — since ancient times — been based on a union between a man and a woman.

Chiu also suggested that same-sex marriage could destroy a number of traditional cultural and ritual observances, citing as an example the use of kao (考) and bi (妣) at funerals and memorial tablets for deceased fathers and mothers.

And now Premier Lin:

the minister’s remarks “do not represent the Executive Yuan.”

And now the NPP vs. the DPP:

New Power Party Legislator Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明) at a question-and-answer session at the legislature yesterday asked Lin Chuan whether “the biased stance” of “separate, but equal” reflects the position of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration.

The premier said Chiu did not speak for the Executive Yuan.

Lin Chuan added that he did not understand what the minister meant by “separate, but equal” and would have him expound on it.

He doesn’t know that term? I thought they all had degrees from American universities or something. :idunno:

Meanwhile, more rumors of mischief:

Alliance secretary-general Chang Shou-yi (張守一) said that there are hands behind the scenes perverting the judiciary, tying up the justices to manipulate them like puppets.

“We hope the grand justices can liberate themselves from the strings and freely make an interpretation that can be respected by the people for ages. By doing so, they can become national heroes,” he said.

And now we get an American style argument:

Chang Chao-heng (張肇珩), secretary-general for a major Taoist organization, said that judges should only interpret the Constitution and have no authority to make new rules or introduce legal provisions.

“Therefore, this case — which seeks to challenge the Constitution on same-sex marriage — has already exceeded the court’s legal jurisdiction,” Chang Chao-heng said.

“We believe this case is just a charade, because we know that the government and judges have already set their stance on same-sex marriage. There has been too much devious plotting and manipulation; the case has already lost its fairness and impartiality,” he added.

I thought they were being asked to provide a reference, as one would say in Canada, not to legislate from the bench, as one would say in the US.

Wow. So the 90~95% of the population who aren’t homosexual are not having children now because of the gay population? Because they’re suddenly turning gay? I don’t understand your reasoning.

2 Likes

The problem lies in the allocation of scarce resources that should be spent on the sustainability of this society, not subsidizing the lifestyle of persons inherently unable to procreate due to their own genital preferences. Tax monies now contributed by forever childless homo couples that could be spent on public kindergartens will no longer be available when gay marriage including the tax breaks that come with marriage become a reality in Taiwan.

Gay couples can have children, just as straight couples sometimes can’t or choose not to. Your marriage tax break theory leading to the collapse of society is weird.

3 Likes

So basically you’re advocating a “non-procreation” tax?

So these tax breaks should be denied also to heterosexual married couples who are infertile, too old to procreate, or simply choose not to have children, yes?

4 Likes

Ugh.

2 Likes

Precisely.

Correct!

Do you realize you just accused the Motherland of doing something wrong? :doh:

“The island is ridiculously overcrowded and doesn’t grow enough food to feed itself! It’s a conspiracy of degeneracy! We desperately need MORE HUMANS!!!”
:runaway: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :wall: :exploding_head:

1 Like

The Council of Grand Justices made its decision, and the clock is ticking, so unless the Motherland takes over really soon, it’s going to happen whether you like it or not. They’re proverbially moving into the neighborhood. You can try to get along with your new neighbors, or you can live in a timewarp. :dizzy_face:

Inherently unable to procreate? :ponder: I remember reading that about interracial couples in a former century. Science ended up telling a different story. :idunno:

One would think lower birth rate = less money needing to be spent on education, and higher birth rate = more money needing to be spent.

Or is the One True Path simply maintenance of the exact population level that currently exists, despite that level being unprecedented in all of history?

It’s also worth asking what effects gay marriage will have on various people’s productivity (hence tax revenue) and health (hence tax expenditure – or savings). It’s complicated, of course.

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals, nor do I think that homosexuality should be illegal. Gay neighbors would not bother me at all.

The issues I raise are related to allocation of public resources, not the legality of sexual practices. Just because something is legal does not mean the state should promote/fund it.

And whether same sex marriage will become a reality is something to be seen. The Grand Justices decided on the basis of the interpretation of the constitution - a constitution can be amended. That has happened before in Taiwan. Even without a constitutional amendment taxation laws can be changed to achieve a socially desirable outcome.

I do not believe that anyone seriously doubted interracial couples are inherently unable to procreate. Ability to procreate is a question of biological ability. I cannot see how the semen of one man could gestate in the anus of another and result in new life.

The problem of a low birthrate surrounds economic inputs and outputs. To maintain Taiwan’s GDP we either need to maintain the number of workers, or we need to increase productivity. I cannot see how Taiwan could compensate a shrinking work force with productivity gains. I also cannot see how Taiwan could attract sufficient numbers of skilled foreign workers. Not that it would be in the interest of Taiwan to alter the ethnic/cultural makeup of society in such a radical manner anyways.

Perhaps by being less homophobic?

Thanks for making your ethno-racial xenophobia clear. Your service to the forumosan community will no doubt be warmly received!

Best wishes,
Guy

4 Likes

I don’t get any “homophobia” (lol) from his statement. It seems like he’s basing his view mostly on economical terms. Not necessarily something I completely agree with, but I don’t see any hatred in his statements.

Is the act of trying to keep the culture of a nation intact an ethno-racial xenophobic act? Geez, Japan must be scary as fuck then…

He very clearly pointed out some economical factors that for him should be kept under consideration when dealing with the rights of homosexual people, especially concerning social benefits/allocation of resources etc.
If the counter-argument to his point is:“You’re homophobic”, to my eyes it kinda validates his position, because if his argument was heavily flawed and easy to prove wrong, then it would make more sense to do so rather than dismiss it.

It is slightly offtopic, but when discussing this kind of stuff there’s always a lot of whataboutery and appeal to greater problems that lead in other directions. Several people went OT following his train of thoughts and calling him an ethno nationalist racist homophobe whatever regardless of the fact they were fueling the OT, yet nearly no one refuted his position. Which is interesting to me, more so than the concerned outrage.

1 Like

bump