talkFORUM

As we recall , the whole issue of " gay marriage"'sprang up from nowhere in various countries including our own.
There was no real call for it from the public and no particular campaign by homosexuals for that matter .
Nonetheless , all the world's leaders came home from a Bilderberg meeting and quite separately and independently decided to push it to the top of the Agenda. Remember how David Cameron suddenly came up with it even though it wasn't in, or even suggested to be included in his recent manifesto.
Many highlighted this at the time as proof that some unwarranted influence was being exerted on individual governments by hidden interest groups. Not an unreasonable conclusion really.

Anyway, to update this and put it into context with the current assault upon democracy by our own politicians , the BBC and global elitite cronies in the USA , they held a referrendum in Taiwan in which 70% of voters rejected gay marriage.

Guess what happened - their " Parliament " ignored that and brought it in anyhow !

Interesting that client states like this ,which would in the past have been pressured to adopt democratic practises now seem to be getting pressured in the other direction.

In principle, the decision is undemocratic an incorrect, based on the majority view of the Taiwan people. However, imo, this is an example where they have risen above principle and done what's right.

Obviously, those who voted against gay marriage are hetrosexual, and for reasons best known to them, don't want it in their country. However this disregards the views and feelings of gay people, who are entitled to have their own happiness and life fulfilment.

In other Asian countries, they still have the babaric punishment of stoning to death when someone has been found to be having gay sex. Let's hope the brave decision taken by Taiwan sends out a clear message of tolerance.

Live and let live, and think about others as well as yourself.

Zambo wrote:In principle, the decision is undemocratic an incorrect, based on the majority view of the Taiwan people. However, imo, this is an example where they have risen above principle and done what's right.

Obviously, those who voted against gay marriage are hetrosexual, and for reasons best known to them, don't want it in their country. However this disregards the views and feelings of gay people, who are entitled to have their own happiness and life fulfilment.

In other Asian countries, they still have the babaric punishment of stoning to death when someone has been found to be having gay sex. Let's hope the brave decision taken by Taiwan sends out a clear message of tolerance.

Live and let live, and think about others as well as yourself.

Is this another one where that tongue in cheek gif is needed?

Roy Twing wrote:

Zambo wrote:In principle, the decision is undemocratic an incorrect, based on the majority view of the Taiwan people. However, imo, this is an example where they have risen above principle and done what's right.

Obviously, those who voted against gay marriage are hetrosexual, and for reasons best known to them, don't want it in their country. However this disregards the views and feelings of gay people, who are entitled to have their own happiness and life fulfilment.

In other Asian countries, they still have the babaric punishment of stoning to death when someone has been found to be having gay sex. Let's hope the brave decision taken by Taiwan sends out a clear message of tolerance.

Live and let live, and think about others as well as yourself.

Is this another one where that tongue in cheek gif is needed?

No mate, this one is as per my beliefs and opinion.

Thousands of same sex couples have got married in the UK, and not one them have had any impact on my or my families lives. It's not my business what other people do in or with their lives unless it affects me.

The only thing is that marriage is a religious sacrament ,and most religions forbid active homosexuality. It's therefore an insult to various religions to call it marriage .

I fully agree that people should be allowed to do whatever they want and not be bothered by anyone else about their personal lives. However this thing about the state wanting to insert such relationships into what is essentially a religious title is more about attacking the religion than helping homosexuals.

If I enjoy eating pork chops, bacon and prawn cocktails , nobody stops me doing that. It would stop me becoming a Rabbi though. This is like the government telling Jews that they've got to accept it as a legitimate Passover meal . It doesn't help non Jews to call a pork pie Kosher but it'd certainly upset Jewish people.

There no need for homosexuals to use a religious term for their relationships, specially if they don't believe in that religion, but that's an old argument and not really the point here.
I'm more concerned in this post with the fact that they've offered people a choice in a ballot,( why would they do that if one choice is so morally and ethically unacceptable ), then totally ignored the outcome when it doesn't suit them ?

Politicians increasingly think that they're from some super class of royalty who don't need to take any notice of democratic votes they don't agree with, and I'd suggest that this is a worrying trend.

Religion is a load of bollocks in my opinion Royals, and moreover has been the root of all evil ever since forever, so for me it's not a consideration. Agree about ignoring the majority's views though, it's pointless giving them a vote if they are not going to honour the result.

There has been a demand for equal treatment by sexual minorities for decades.
Rather than leaders impose it, they were remarkably impervious to the demand.
It does no harm to the rest of us, and in our current society it is bizarre to deny people the opportunity to pledge love and loyalty to each other, irrespective of their sexuality.
And why is the bible applied so selectively? There are whole chunks of it about treating people better, and defying greed, which strangely are rarely mentioned.

I doubt that you've read the Bible much, and similarly I doubt whether you speak to many Christians about such matters.
There are many other religions which have rules about marriage though, so it's not an excuse for a bit of Christian kicking.

As I said, this is more to do with ignoring voted than gay marriage itself though.

To put my cards on the table, I'm torn on this, but purely from a personal gut feeling, I come down against gay marriage, which I can elaborate on of course, but that isn't my main point on this particular thread.
Whilst my initial response was, particularly against the backdrop of the all-pervading brexit vote, that it is outrageous for a government to ignore a democratic result, - it seems, as with brexit, a no-brainer.
But then of course, the elephant in the room here is that a majority is making a decision for a small minority and that minority is one that can't be as easily engineered to increase as some others, so a referendum wasn't perhaps the fairest choice.
At the end of the day, it demonstrates, if proof were needed, that democracy only works if those in power allow it.

Royal24s wrote:I doubt that you've read the Bible much, and similarly I doubt whether you speak to many Christians about such matters.
There are many other religions which have rules about marriage though, so it's not an excuse for a bit of Christian kicking.

As I said, this is more to do with ignoring voted than gay marriage itself though.

You simply can't resist the attempted put-downs can you?
I imagine you think that makes the other person fail to notice you have not answered the point.
I asked a couple of simple questions
1. What harm can it do, particularly as we are not a religious society, if people want to do this? I don't think they are attacking your notion of a Christian marriage.
2. Again, why is the bible so selectively quoted? By the way I spent sixteen years of my life subject to the Bible, and I know there many things it says which, place in very great question your support for certain movements and people. Funnily enough, they don't get a mention.

No put down . I know from many previous conversations that you're not very knowledgable about scripture and that you misconstrue a lot of what it says.
Not the point here though as I said, and nor is it the point to re argue gay marriage .

That's why I didn't address that stuff, although we can start another thread fir it if you like.

The thing we're discussing here is why an elected government over ruled a democratic referrendum theyd called and how anyone could justify such a thing, which is the point you don't want to address apparently.

Did the Taiwan government say they would act on the result of the vote? If so, then they should honour that promise. Same principle as the EU referendum.

So if I voted for gay marriage but the vote went the other way, I'd expect and accept the goverment acting on it. What I wouldn't do is whine and moan about it for three years.

Its probably been done to annoy the Chinese.

Zambo wrote:In principle, the decision is undemocratic an incorrect, based on the majority view of the Taiwan people. However, imo, this is an example where they have risen above principle and done what's right.

Obviously, those who voted against gay marriage are hetrosexual, and for reasons best known to them, don't want it in their country. However this disregards the views and feelings of gay people, who are entitled to have their own happiness and life fulfilment.

In other Asian countries, they still have the babaric punishment of stoning to death when someone has been found to be having gay sex. Let's hope the brave decision taken by Taiwan sends out a clear message of tolerance.

Live and let live, and think about others as well as yourself.

It's hard to disagree with this. It sounds exactly like the tolerant position I hold on it too and probably the majority who form their own opinions as opposed to those who have to cross check them with religious dogma.

The trouble isn't your average gay, it's the hardcore militants who aren't satisfied we've made sufficient progress on the subject because there are still some people complaining about having open anal sex in the middle of the high street.

I exaggerate to highlight the point but these people do flaunt seediness directly in the faces of people and as a result it tarnishes people who are happy to live slightly less in the spotlight.

It also makes people judge the whole community on the actions of the militants.

Royal24s wrote:As we recall , the whole issue of " gay marriage"'sprang up from nowhere in various countries including our own.
There was no real call for it from the public and no particular campaign by homosexuals for that matter .
Nonetheless , all the world's leaders came home from a Bilderberg meeting and quite separately and independently decided to push it to the top of the Agenda. Remember how David Cameron suddenly came up with it even though it wasn't in, or even suggested to be included in his recent manifesto.
Many highlighted this at the time as proof that some unwarranted influence was being exerted on individual governments by hidden interest groups. Not an unreasonable conclusion really.

Anyway, to update this and put it into context with the current assault upon democracy by our own politicians , the BBC and global elitite cronies in the USA , they held a referrendum in Taiwan in which 70% of voters rejected gay marriage.

Guess what happened - their " Parliament " ignored that and brought it in anyhow !

Interesting that client states like this ,which would in the past have been pressured to adopt democratic practises now seem to be getting pressured in the other direction.

Not going to go all Hillman on you, Royal, but hey, a bit of a difference of opinion.

Firstly, the so what. Why can't those men whom bugger and like it and are together not have the same rights as those who like a dick in slit? And often on some research, not noted, also like a dick in the wrong 'un. Civil union blah, let them get married and enjoy it*

Bilderburg, blame it.

"Anyway, to update this and put it into context with the current assault upon democracy by our own politicians , the BBC and global elitite cronies in the USA , they held a referrendum in Taiwan in which 70% of voters rejected gay marriage."

I love hearing the lovely Cindy Sui from Taipei on 5Live and the World Service. Not sure if she's a western plant or a Chinese double agent, or a rare triple agent. Though she sounds lovely and makes Taiwan sound good. So good on her.

So how did we get here? Let the fake BBC begin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48305708

In 2017, Taiwan's constitutional court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to legally marry.
It said then that the island had two years to make necessary changes to the law.
But this was met with a public backlash, which pressured the government into holding a series of referendums.
The referendum results showed that a majority of voters in Taiwan rejected legalising same-sex marriage, saying that the definition of marriage was the union of a man and woman.

2018 Taiwanese multi-referendum from the less fake Mr Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Taiwanese_referendum shows all result to a vary of questions.

72% voted for 'Restricting marriage under Civil Code to one man and woman'
61% voted for 'Protecting rights of same-sex couples outside of the Civil Code'

So here we are now, 'As a result, Taiwan said it would not alter its existing definition of marriage in civil law, and instead would enact a special law for same-sex marriage'.

Who knows the facts? London, Washington, Beijing or Taipei?