Do you agree or don’t agree " Taiwan should support same-sex marriage? Why
Hey, why don’t you do a poll? Then you could have a range of questions. Just an idea.
mhn, maybe can but just wanna know some people’s thought
isn’t the whole point of marriage to only ever have the same sex forever after?
OP, you seem to post a lot of one-line bland questions and then completely lose interest in the answers.
Could there be a reason for this?
Actually i’m confuse about it which i heard “same sex” has 2 types. There are naturally or interesting. So in Taiwan i saw lot of people who are same sex. So in those people accept to married each other or not?.. Government how to decide and support them
Yes, Taiwan should allow same-sex marriage. Indeed, it should be allowed everywhere in the world.
Simple answer: Freedom.
Personally I think the OP is just racking up a post count, but it’s an interesting question.
IMO it’s the complete opposite. Some people have an overwhelming need for approval from their peers. They need a piece of paper from the government that says “you are a couple”, complete with a rubber stamp from a faceless official, simply because they don’t have sufficient belief in themselves. You can take a vow of marriage whereever you like; it has meaning if you believe it does, not because someone else says so.
Yes, Taiwan should allow same-sex marriage. Indeed, it should be allowed everywhere in the world.
Simple answer: Freedom.[/quote]
Polygamy and Polyandry marriages should be allowed then too eh? (the latter being 1 woman, multiple husbands).
:braveheart:
As open as Taiwan seems to be about same sex couples, culturally it is still very unacceptable. The openness probably is a way of saying “ain’t my kid, so I don’t care”. I really wish they would legalize it, since there’s no state religion saying that it’s immoral or anything.
[quote=“Confuzius”]
Polygamy and Polyandry marriages should be allowed then too eh? (the latter being 1 woman, multiple husbands).
:braveheart:[/quote]
Polygamy 嫐
Polyandry 嬲
[quote=“finley”]OP, you seem to post a lot of one-line bland questions and then completely lose interest in the answers.
Could there be a reason for this?[/quote]
Probably trying to get us to do his/her homework assignments.
[quote=“finley”]Personally I think the OP is just racking up a post count, but it’s an interesting question.
IMO it’s the complete opposite. Some people have an overwhelming need for approval from their peers. They need a piece of paper from the government that says “you are a couple”, complete with a rubber stamp from a faceless official, simply because they don’t have sufficient belief in themselves. You can take a vow of marriage whereever you like; it has meaning if you believe it does, not because someone else says so.[/quote]
Philosophically I understand where you’re coming from, but I’ve read too many stories about lifelong couples in which one of the partners isn’t allowed in the hospital room at the end of life, because they’re not officially family (never mind inheritance issues, ownership of property, and so on). There are lots of legal rights that the married have, and those can become very important.
Although like you, I think I’m more curious about what’s going on with all the questions: is there some kind of troll or scam we’re missing? (Ah, I see Charlie Phillips has commented on this - homework seems a good possibility! Oh, if so, I really hope the teacher is a foreigner who’s also on Forumosa.)
Oh fuck, another person who has been in a coma for the past decade. 
Arguing for A is not arguing for B. B can make it’s own arguments and when it does we can judge them on their own. Gay marriage arguments have been circulating for 2 decades. They are rational, fair, sensible and humane and all counter-arguments have proven to be nothing but bigotry and worries that experience has proven wrong (such as the canard that gay marriage would lead to greater loss of respect for marriage among heteros).
Oh fuck, another person who has been in a coma for the past decade.
Arguing for A is not arguing for B. B can make it’s own arguments and when it does we can judge them on their own. Gay marriage arguments have been circulating for 2 decades. They are rational, fair, sensible and humane and all counter-arguments have proven to be nothing but bigotry and worries that experience has proven wrong (such as the canard that gay marriage would lead to greater loss of respect for marriage among heteros).[/quote]
MM, usually you don’t just jump to conclusions because someone disagrees with you… (btw…I actually believe all of the above should be legal, so you totally missed my intentions there).
The only reason gay marriages are illegal (afaik) are:
- Religion
- Bigotry
So lets toss those two out the window.
Now, that those two are tossed out the window, there are now no reasons for multiple partner marriages to be illegal.
Just follow the logic…no need to jump on the left wing bandwagon without using your noggin; 
Yes, my point was there are two aspects to marriage: the vow, and the legal rights and obligations. The problems you mention are issues of procedure and law that are part of the standard marriage “package”, but aren’t necessarily exclusive to it. Most jurisdictions allow covenants and contracts which would permit the desired legal outcome. Hospitals do not (in theory) have the right to overrule the wishes of the patient, although they sometimes do because they have better lawyers. The only legal “advantage” of marriage that gays can’t access are the tax breaks. That seems a pretty trivial basis for demands for “equality”.
The other legal provisions of hetero marriage are largely to do with the fact that children may be involved, and (historically) based on the supposition that a divorced woman is less able to provide for herself. Frankly, I find it baffling that people would wish to tie the rights and obligations of their relationship into an adversarial legal system, whose purpose is not dispute resolution but to provide incomes for the honourable members of the legal profession. That applies equally to men and women, gay and straight.
Gay marriages are not illegal (except in a few outposts of thirdworldness where homosexuality itself is illegal). They’re just not recognised as marriages by the legal establishment or by the Inland Revenue.
[quote=“finley”][quote=confucius’]
Gay marriages are not illegal (except in a few outposts of thirdworldness where homosexuality itself is illegal). They’re just not recognised as marriages by the legal establishment or by the Inland Revenue.[/quote]
Gotto use the dictionary forya bro?
1il·le·gal adjective (ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl\
Definition of ILLEGAL
: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
taken from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal
So yes, they are illegal, they are not authorized by law, nor sanctioned by the official rules.
They are…illegal.
No. Illegal/unlawful means there is a legal instrument that allows a well-defined action X to be punished by penalty Y. No such code specifically criminalizing homosexual marriage exists in Taiwan, Europe, or the US. It was (probably still is) quite common for gay couples to make their own arrangements. Some heterosexual couples do the same. Nobody went to jail for that, AFAIK.
According to your definition, having sex with vacuum cleaners or painting your knees blue are both illegal.
You didn’t know that already??? You didn’t know there are men and women??? 
[quote=“finley”]No. Illegal/unlawful means there is a legal instrument that allows a well-defined action X to be punished by penalty Y. No such code specifically criminalizing homosexual marriage exists in Taiwan, Europe, or the US. It was (probably still is) quite common for gay couples to make their own arrangements. Some heterosexual couples do the same. Nobody went to jail for that, AFAIK.
According to your definition, having sex with vacuum cleaners or painting your knees blue are both illegal.[/quote]
Thats how YOU define illegal.
Hmmmmmmm, whom should I trust, Merriam-Webster, or Finley?
I shall have to get back to you on that one.