Frankly I think the Webster’s definition sucks. It say that ‘illegal’ means ‘unlawful’, which is pathetically circular.
If you don’t believe me, consult a lawyer 
Frankly I think the Webster’s definition sucks. It say that ‘illegal’ means ‘unlawful’, which is pathetically circular.
If you don’t believe me, consult a lawyer [/quote]
I shall definitely do that.
It’s now on my bucket list.
Right below eating beetle turds. :lick:
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; 
[/quote]
Sorry dude. I get touchy on this subject.
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; [/quote]
Sorry dude. I get touchy on this subject.[/quote]
Its cool 
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]
When people say gay marriage is illegal, the usual meaning is that it’s not recognized by law.
Well, like I said, there’s nothing to stop you crafting a contract broadly equivalent to the one implicit in civil marriage, especially since some of the rights/obligations of a heterosexual union simply don’t apply. I’m pretty sure a “custom” civil marriage contract is neither illegal nor unlawful in most jurisdictions; nor is the associated marriage ceremony (religious or otherwise):
Illegal: Prohibited by law.
Unlawful: That which is contrary to law. “Unlawful” and “illegal” are frequently used as synonymous terms, but, in the proper sense of the word, “unlawful,” as applied to promises, agreements, considerations, and the like, denotes that they are ineffectual in law because they involve acts which, al- though not illegal, i. e., positively forbidden, are disapproved of by the law, and are therefore not recognized as the ground of legal rights, either because they are immoral or because they are against public policy. It is on this ground that contracts in restraint of marriage or of trade are generally void.
The ‘unlawful’ bit is a grey area - it’s possible that some countries might refuse to adjudicate such a contract if it were not carefully framed. OTOH, I always thought marriage was supposed to be based on mutual trust, not a threat of legal action.
Heterosexual people (usually cranks, but that’s by-the-by) make up their own versions of marriage all the time.
If people insist on imagining that gay marriage is illegal, that’s their own problem. As far as I’m aware, the only rights that you can’t assign to yourselves (as a couple) are: the right to adopt children (for the exact same reason any other citizen can’t grant themselves that right), and the right to shared (preferential) tax rates.
Should be allowed everywhere under tje assumption that any action that happens between consenting adults and is not provably harmful to others should be allowed.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
I support gay marriage and think it is a basic human righr but thinking it will come to Taiwan is way too optimistic. Like a lot of Salafist muslim countries, adultery is still on the books. 
Lots of modernizations needed but thinking it will all happen soon is just not living in reality.
Well, like I said, there’s nothing to stop you crafting a contract broadly equivalent to the one implicit in civil marriage, especially since some of the rights/obligations of a heterosexual union simply don’t apply. I’m pretty sure a “custom” civil marriage contract is neither illegal nor unlawful in most jurisdictions; nor is the associated marriage ceremony (religious or otherwise)[/quote]
Sure, but the procedure is different for gay couples compared to straight couples. Straight couples just need to get married, and area automatically granted hundreds of rights and privileges, plus these (or subsets thereof) are automatically recognized in many other jurisdictions. Gay couples would have to get lawyers to draw up a specific, detailed contract, and even then they won’t be able to enjoy all the rights granted to their straight married counterparts.
The aim here is marriage equality.
There are no basic, human rights. There are sets of different privileges for different people and of different origins and situations which dictate what they can and can’t do and which may change from day to day. These privileges are not decided by the individual and so will always dictate to the minority, which is in fact everyone as no two people can ever be the same. These are privileges and not rights because privileges can be taken away, as opposed to rights. The majority of people thee days seem more predominantly for privileges as opposed to rights.
Of course marriage is a construct much like any other, which infurs control. Arguing for gay marriage therefore would just be bowing down to the same system of control which formerly or presently supports or denies gay marriage. Its all quite ironic I feel.
There are no basic, human rights. There are sets of different privileges for different people and of different origins and situations which dictate what they can and can’t do and which may change from day to day. These privileges are not decided by the individual and so will always dictate to the minority, which is in fact everyone as no two people can ever be the same. These are privileges and not rights because privileges can be taken away, as opposed to rights. The majority of people thee days seem more predominantly for privileges as opposed to rights.
Of course marriage is a construct much like any other, which infurs control. Arguing for gay marriage therefore would just be bowing down to the same system of control which formerly or presently supports or denies gay marriage. Its all quite ironic I feel.[/quote]
Ah, the putrid smells of cultural relativism.
[quote=“Chris”]Sure, but the procedure is different for gay couples compared to straight couples. Straight couples just need to get married, and area automatically granted hundreds of rights and privileges, plus these (or subsets thereof) are automatically recognized in many other jurisdictions. Gay couples would have to get lawyers to draw up a specific, detailed contract, and even then they won’t be able to enjoy all the rights granted to their straight married counterparts.
The aim here is marriage equality.[/quote]
I agree, and will add that marriage costs about $40 for a certificate at the local courthouse, whereas gay couple will spend between $20,000-$40,000 in legal fees over the course of their lifetimes, and even then will never achieve the same legal of legal protection as marriage. Many gay people have children from previous marriages/relationships, and inheritance is easily challeneged if the only thing the surviving gay partner can produce is a civil union type contract. Finley’s statement that gay couple can “easily” draw up a contract that equates to the hundreds of legal protections and privileges that marriage bestows is simply inaccurate. For both moral and practical reasons, Taiwan and all countries should legalize gay marriage.
But gay people are not “equal”. Surely I don’t need to explain what the difference is? That’s going to have practical implications for a marriage. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all Sulavaca was saying is that marriage (in the modern sense) is simply a package of laws that you can opt into. You’re voluntarily handing over a little bit of control and responsibility for your own life to someone else. That “someone else” therefore has every right to decide what that package includes. For example, on the subject of adoption, the government must hold the child’s rights paramount; prospective adoptive parents have preferences, but not rights. That’s true whether they are homo- or heterosexual, but it has different practical implications for gay couples.
You would think some enterprising lawyer would have figured this out and produced a ‘marriage pack’ for $500 a pop. Bargain at twice the price.
I honestly don’t see why gay couples should need to spend a shitload of money on legal fees, any more than hetero couples should. Going to a lawyer to sort out your problems is never compulsory; in fact, given the divorce rate and the complexities of settlement, I suggest gay couples are at a distinct advantage.
As for “practical reasons”, can you enumerate them? Civil marriage law has none of the practical functions it once had when women had a legal status somewhere between the sofa and the dog. In the case of gay couples, I don’t see that it serves any practical purpose, except to allow the holder of the marriage certificate to look smug and say “see, I’m a compliant drone, just like you”.
Finley, the only practical functions I argue still exist in contractual marriage are possible taxation issues and/or residency privileges.
I think that Britain is now also clamping down on residency privileges of foreign born spouses, which is really starting to leaving little reason for marriage in the first place now.
I am of course referring to the common method of marriage through licensing. I am not referring to marriage under common law (The Magna Carta), which is arguably an entirely different topic.
I think this misses the point. Heterosexual couples have the option to not legally marry and make use of the alternate legal methods if they so choose. However, gay couples in most places do not have the option to exercise the marriage rights the government affords to heterosexual couples. If the government makes this right available to citizens who want it–even if it is of dubious value as you say–shouldn’t it be made equally available to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation? Whether it is a wise or necessary choice seems like an entirely different question to me, that has no special relevance to the question of gay marriage as opposed to marriage in general.
But gay people are not “equal”.[/quote]
… yet. And that’s because of the way the law is currently structured. The goal (which has yet to be achieved in most jurisdictions) is to reform the law so that they ARE equal under the law.
Saw lots of people retweeting this on twitter:
My hubby (white) and I are legally married in the Netherlands. The reason we got married is for the commitment, not for a stamp or disbelief in our relationship. However, the Taiwanese government doesn’t approve it when we brought all the documents back to Taiwan simply because the Constitution of the R.O.C. states that a man and a woman can get married. But what affected us was that my hubby loses many rights in Taiwan, for example working permit and bank loan application (guarantor needs to be his “wife”). If same-sex marriage were approved, it would not have created some inequality rights we should gain.
Right. This is a reason, I would say for taking away the law in this case. I mean the banks should have the power to decide for themselves which accounts they were going to service.
Agree. It’s fair for same-sex couples to take advantages of legal marriage like everyone else. However, I don’t think Taiwan gonna be the first country in Asia to approve this. Vietnam is said to consider same-sex marriage, but Thailand or the Philippines have more possibility to make the move.