On May 24 Taiwan’s constitutional court ruled that same-sex couples ought to have access to the institution of marriage, and gave the legislature two years to amend the civil code. They are the first Asian nation to adopt same-sex marriage.
June 1, 2017
Taiwan approves same-sex marriage
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage[14] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
June 2, 2017 at 7:06 am
I read where last year in Taiwan where 3 guys entered into a civil union together….I wonder how that is working out and yet I don’t even want to know.
LikeLike
June 2, 2017 at 7:36 am
This Post could easily be entitled “Humanity and Human Rights Now Civilizing in Asian countries.
The world is capitulating to the true identity of humanity in the human experience as love evolves, unfettered by religious, cultural, traditional and social dogma.
LikeLike
June 5, 2017 at 3:37 am
Hello Elaine,
You wrote,”I read where last year in Taiwan where 3 guys entered into a civil union together….I wonder how that is working out and yet I don’t even want to know.”
How about that Mormons happily co-habit with several women? What is the difference please?
Did you know that it was Catholicism that imposed the formal marriage ceremony and that before this people were marrying by mutual consent?
Below is a link and an extract for your information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church
Thus, with few local exceptions, until in some cases long after the Council of Trent, marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[47][48] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[49] This promise was known as the “verbum.” If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., “I marry you”), it was unquestionably binding;[47] if made in the future tense (“I will marry you”), it would constitute a betrothal.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 5, 2017 at 7:06 am
Dino’s:
That was a good tsk, tsk, tsk, for Elaine although I believe she will fail to accept the comparison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 5, 2017 at 5:13 pm
Hello LeoTheGreater,
I like asking questions of myself as well as others and I try very hard not to be judgemental and to discourage other people from being so.
I have been married twice and had three children with my first wife.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 10:17 pm
Sonofman, it could also easily be titled “First Asian country to deny the obvious that a marital union can only be formed by a man and a woman.” I guess it depends on who is titling the articles and whether they want to deny the biological basis of marriage.
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm
TR:
You neglect and deny one important point that must be considered. When it comes to gender, brain gender trumps biological “apparent” gender….. especially in brain/biological gender anomalies. Brain is King.
Reality does not always reflect what your perception decides to be correct or accurate the reality that is outside your own brain. You must leave room for alternate states of reality in other humans because the drug of absolute certainty is the devil’s drug bent on a one size fits all reality and one cannot take that position without jeopardizing credibility.
LikeLike
June 6, 2017 at 10:41 pm
Dino, no one is saying that a marriage must be formalized by the state to be a marriage. Even if the government (or the church) was not involved in licensing marriages, marriages would still be formed because marriage is a natural institution, not something created by the state. The issue with so-called same-sex marriage is that it is a misnomer. Marriages can only be formed between two people of the opposite sex. It’s the very nature of marriage itself.
Humans are gendered beings, and our sexual organs are designed to function only with the opposite sex (i.e. our sexual organs are inherently incomplete, and only achieve their biological purpose when united with the sexual organ of the opposite sex). A sexual union of male and female has the natural capacity to produce new life. Of all the different kinds of human relationships, the kind of relationship that can join together two sexual halves into a sexual whole capable of generating new human beings is absolutely unique. We call this kind of relationship a “marriage” (the marriage covenant formalizes this organic union with a commitment to keep the union intact until death).
So the institution of marriage is based on the objective nature of human biology and fulfills the practical need of managing the children that naturally and typically result from hetero-sex unions. “Marriage” describes a particular kind of relationship that fulfills a particular role in society. Since the sexual union of same-sex couples does not form a sexual whole and is not capable of generating new human life, their union is not of the marital sort and should not be called “marriage.”
“Marriage” refers to a specific kind of relationship, and since same-sex unions do not fit the description, they should not be called “marriages.” Calling them “marriages” is to engage in verbal fictions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Jesuspeake, I do not agree that the mind trumps biology. Why should we think the subjective (mind) trumps the objective (biology)? That makes no sense. But even if I agreed with you, it’s irrelevant, because marriage is not based on gender, but on sex. See my comments to Dino (#8).
LikeLike
June 9, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Hello Jason,
Thank you for sharing your strong views about the marriage of homo sapiens.
It would be helpful if you asked me to explain any of my prose that may be unclear to you rather than to make assumptions and then base your argument on them.
The original article had ‘marriage’ in the title and was intended to mean one that is formalised by the state. That is the reason I thought to make the point to Elaine that originally, even in Western countries, it was mutual consent that was required and not a church sacrament that was legally binding and that it was the dominant Catholic Church that introduced it. I was not surprised to learn that you already knew this but should we assume that all people who read the blogs do too?
Since you justify marriage between homo sapiens on biological grounds and you have not commented on the practice of Mormon males having legal wives in countries where this is permitted and cohabitees in countries where monogamy alone is legal, should we ask if you approve of these arrangements?
I prefer to explore the variety of human behaviour without prejudice. Personally, I have been celibate since the death of my second wife in March 2006 but I would not recommend it as St Paul did. What is your view of adultery? What do you think should be done to human hermaphrodites? – see link below:
http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1945/03000/Reviews,_Abstracts,_Notes,_and_Correspondence__The.6.aspx
Why did God create organisms that are naturally hermaphrodite? Does God have a male gender since we Christians refer to God using male pronouns?
In my humble experience, absolute certainty does not encourage lively and interesting debates but the expression of views that create cliques instead.
Peace and love to all,
Dinos
LikeLike
June 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm
Regards,
LikeLike
June 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm
http://rooprang.com/
LikeLike
June 11, 2017 at 11:09 pm
Regards,
LikeLike
June 11, 2017 at 11:09 pm
It is really written extremely good. Always keep up the great work. Spread more of your pro views. Looking forward for more.
LikeLike