To press the case further,I believe most of us would have heard of stories of some guy, usually a teenager, asked to take responsibility for a very pregnant girl, usually also teenager. The urgency for the case for marriage is more for pregnancy rather than the consumation of union. Fornification, out of sight and mind, is usually conveniently, side stepped, but not if it involve another life, the unborn infant!
What does that have to do with gay marriage or marriage at all? Genuninely confused.
I have posted elsewhere before, that the decision to deny gay rights is a political one.
The PAP knows its vote bastion of old people is anti-gay. If it were to grrant gays rights, it would suffer no vote losses because the opposition would hardly swing to the anti-gay side and oppose the issue.
Instead, by capitalizing on the painting of the opposition as pro-gay, it derives additional support from its vote base. Attempts to capitalize on this perception include Vivian's comments on Vincent Wijeysingha.
Originally posted by alize: ssBut society is not always right. That's why the definition of marriage is an evolving one. It used to include polygamy and exclude inter-racial marriage, as accepted by society.
Originally posted by Weychin:
Agreed, the but examples you all involves producing the next genaration, for a same sexual union to gain wide acceptance and not disdain, another term must be coined and not seen to dilute the signifance of present matrimony values! It must find a way to coexist with continuing social values!
Oh, so you want to allow gays their rights but give their right a different name.
But back when the issue was inter-racial couples and polygamous marraige, was a new name coined? Would it deny their rights if we coined a new name for them now?
Just for everyone's information,
In some countries, civil unions and marriage exist side by side. A heterosexual couple can opt to solemnize their marriage in court and have a civil union. Or they can do it in church. They have equal rights in the eyes of the law.
In Singapore, all marriages are civil unions. They are synonymous. That's why it is a criminal offence to hold a traditional ceremony without first registering your marriage officially. You are free to hold a church or customary ceremony after or not hold one at all. But to hold a ceremony without registering it and then go round saying you are married will be punished with jail time.
q Originally posted by alize:To press the case further,I believe most of us would have heard of stories of some guy, usually a teenager, asked to take responsibility for a very pregnant girl, usually also teenager. The urgency for the case for marriage is more for pregnancy rather than the consumation of union. Fornification, out of sight and mind, is usually conveniently, side stepped, but not if it involve another life, the unborn infant!
What does that have to do with gay marriage or marriage at all? Genuninely confused.
Originally posted by alize:I have posted elsewhere before, that the decision to deny gay rights is a political one.
The PAP knows its vote bastion of old people is anti-gay. If it were to grrant gays rights, it would suffer no vote losses because the opposition would hardly swing to the anti-gay side and oppose the issue.
Instead, by capitalizing on the painting of the opposition as pro-gay, it derives additional support from its vote base. Attempts to capitalize on this perception include Vivian's comments on Vincent Wijeysingha.
Originally posted by alize:Just for everyone's information,
In some countries, civil unions and marriage exist side by side. A heterosexual couple can opt to solemnize their marriage in court and have a civil union. Or they can do it in church. They have equal rights in the eyes of the law.
In Singapore, all marriages are civil unions. They are synonymous. That's why it is a criminal offence to hold a traditional ceremony without first registering your marriage officially. You are free to hold a church or customary ceremony after or not hold one at all. But to hold a ceremony without registering it and then go round saying you are married will be punished with jail time.
Originally posted by Weychin:Why do people go through additional customary rites when only the state sanctioned one is sufficient? To gain recognition from its respective community. So if a couple has to go through so much, it is not as simple as an affair of two! Why a marriage for same sex union? No witnesses, not other to celebrate with? If not for social acceptance, why go the ritual of marriage?!
If I have plenty of support from my friends and family for my gay marriage ceremony, can I do it? My happiness is your business?
If you had a gay son, we'll see you on the other side. Don't laugh, it might happen.
You are imposing much hardship on gay people, so you can feel a little happier. This is not a Christian attitude. Nor Buddhist. Nor in line with any religion you may happen to believe in.
Originally posted by alize:If I have plenty of support from my friends and family for my gay marriage ceremony, can I do it? My happiness is your business?
You are imposing much hardship on gay people, so you can feel a little happier. If you had a gay son, we'll see you on the other side. Don't laugh, it might happen.
Originally posted by Weychin:First I wish you happiness, and you do have a right to be happy! Your happiness would be more complete if society at large accept you as you are, not just your friends! I am not going debate whether it's your choice or you're predisposed! But the fact that you go down this road, there will be issues in any path you take! Take accountability for your life. Am I against you(or your lot)? No, just pointing the issues that you'll face! Also, do you think I've much of a choice whether my son or daughter will turn out to be gay or lesbian?
Of course you are against the idea of gays using the term "marriage", you think it is exclusive to you.
I would encourage gays to get married (such as in a foreign jurisdiction, we have many gay expat couples here, and some local ones) and to use the term. The lawful bonds of marriage will apply to you, just that ROM will not register you, so go overseas. No one can stop you. And like I said above, in Singapore, a registered civil union is a marriage.
If people like this say the word is not for you, pay them no heed and carry on.
Originally posted by Weychin:This is obviously an emotional issue for you! But not for me! I’ve not bore any ill will or malice to you or gays and I’ve not victimized you either! You are whom you are, just be at ease with yourself! It is possible that you have been discriminated by some at some point, therefore crave some official sanctioning of who you are! Anyway, I’ve made my points in a very rational manner, advocating for the family with offspring instead of just an union!
Who is getting excited now? Heh. I'm not even gay. I just stand up to oppressors and bigots.
You've got a new contradiction. Now you say gays should be at ease with their natural selves, yet you say they cannot call themselves married. If being gay is natural, what's the problem?
This marriage-for-parents-only thing is such a nice convenient fence of yours.
thought, the topic is about Buddhist Views, not non-Buddhist Views.
this topic below from another forum is good read, esp from Ven Huifeng:-
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2292&p=15789&hilit=homosexual#p15789
除了夫婦之間男女關係，一切��國家法律或社會�德所承�的男女關係�稱爲邪淫.
Apart from the male-female relationship in a marriage, all male-female relationships that are not in accord with the law of the country or social ethics are all "sexual misconduct".
1. This only says "all male-female relationships". So, doesn't actually include homosexuality.
2. This prohibits only that which is illegal or socially unacceptable. If homosexuality is either legal or socially acceptable, then it doesn't fall within the range of this statement.
And by his criteria on pg. 108, if gay marriage was legal, then it wouldn't be a problem either.
i ever heard from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse that cultural acceptence is an issue. ultimately, any act that lead to liberation is wholesome, and any act that does not lead to liberation is unwholesome, (which could including going shopping).
/\
@ Weychin....
It is good to hear the views and reasons from someone who is strongly against same sex marriage. About your views and reasons:
I beg to differ in this instance, marriage as an institution is to be recognised by society at large. Marriage in civilised society is either sanctioned by state and religon or customary rites. For example, in Singapore, it is not uncommon for Christian couples to go through all three ceremonies, ROM, church wedding, tea ceremony. Also, wedding vows must have witnesses to make complete the vows and not forgetting the wedding banquet! Obviously, a wedding must be recognised by it's society before it(state or community) will accrue the union it's right to protection. For couple who cohabited without state sanctioning have common law wife/ husband status. Recognition by society is important.
Other than the civil registration at the ROM, all others reasons that you have stated above such as religious and customary rites including the tea ceremony are just 'optional' for many nowadays. Without these practices and formalities, a marriage is still considered valid and recognized once registered with the ROM. That is the main recognition by society itself. To deprive individuals from such civil right is oppressive, discriminatory, and infringes on the very rights of individuals to decide on their own destiny. Laws that presently criminalize gays’ practices are also unacceptable.
Why should society expect individual to sacrifice their rights and freedom for the collective wishes of the majority of society just because same sex marriage is not the social norms, behavior, traditions and normal practice of society? Isn’t it a rather selfish act to expect this kind of ‘giving’ from individuals just because they are different from the majority?
I still refer to birthright of the future offspring, the need to protect the vulnerable, the baby and the long period he/she needs to become a fully fledged human being. As the same sex couple is unable to bear offspring, why should it demand and deprive couples with offsprings of social care intended to perpetuate the community and species. Please understand the same sex and man/ women sexual do not have the same end game! Adoption must compatible with contemporary social mores! Also gender roles for species propogation must be considered, the expectation of one’s social role when one becomes another’s parent. Currently, the more common family unit is a patriachal one!
I still cannot see what protection you are referring to that is needed for ‘the vulnerable, the baby and the long period he/she needs to become a fully fledged human being.’ And how since same sex couples are unable to bear offspring, it would deprive couples with offsprings of social care intended to perpetuate the community and species?
I split the difference between gay union and gay marriage, also gay marriage vs hereotosexual marriage. Both are unions but only one is procreational!
By the way, If marriage is all about having kids, wouldn’t letting a man or woman who is known to be sterile married defeats the whole purpose of the institution of marriage? If you look at the declining population in Singapore, having kids is certainly not a top priority for a great numbers of hereotosexual marriages here.
Political creatures will always be political creatures! They exploit whatever is to their political advantage! If you push an agenda too hard against current social mores be carefup of a social backlash! One must cultivate positive image and goodwill.
I do not think that putting in place laws that recognized same sex marriage is going to cause any negative political backlash against the present government. If it so, allowing the establishment of the two casinos here would have incurred even worst social furore. It may have cause unhappiness in some quarters but it certainly did not cause any major social backlash.
Originally posted by alize:Who is getting excited now? Heh. I'm not even gay. I just stand up to oppressors and bigots.
You've got a new contradiction. Now you say gays should be at ease with their natural selves, yet you say they cannot call themselves married. If being gay is natural, what's the problem?
This marriage-for-parents-only thing is such a nice convenient fence of yours.
Originally posted by sinweiy:thought, the topic is about Buddhist Views, not non-Buddhist Views.
this topic below from another forum is good read, esp from Ven Huifeng:-
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2292&p=15789&hilit=homosexual#p15789
i ever heard from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse that cultural acceptence is an issue. ultimately, any act that lead to liberation is wholesome, and any act that does not lead to liberation is unwholesome, (which could including going shopping).
/\
Originally posted by Aik TC:
@ Weychin....
It is good to hear the views and reasons from someone who is strongly against same sex marriage. About your views and reasons:
I beg to differ in this instance, marriage as an institution is to be recognised by society at large. Marriage in civilised society is either sanctioned by state and religon or customary rites. For example, in Singapore, it is not uncommon for Christian couples to go through all three ceremonies, ROM, church wedding, tea ceremony. Also, wedding vows must have witnesses to make complete the vows and not forgetting the wedding banquet! Obviously, a wedding must be recognised by it's society before it(state or community) will accrue the union it's right to protection. For couple who cohabited without state sanctioning have common law wife/ husband status. Recognition by society is important.
Other than the civil registration at the ROM, all others reasons that you have stated above such as religious and customary rites including the tea ceremony are just 'optional' for many nowadays. Without these practices and formalities, a marriage is still considered valid and recognized once registered with the ROM. That is the main recognition by society itself. To deprive individuals from such civil right is oppressive, discriminatory, and infringes on the very rights of individuals to decide on their own destiny. Laws that presently criminalize gays’ practices are also unacceptable.
Why should society expect individual to sacrifice their rights and freedom for the collective wishes of the majority of society just because same sex marriage is not the social norms, behavior, traditions and normal practice of society? Isn’t it a rather selfish act to expect this kind of ‘giving’ from individuals just because they are different from the majority?
I still refer to birthright of the future offspring, the need to protect the vulnerable, the baby and the long period he/she needs to become a fully fledged human being. As the same sex couple is unable to bear offspring, why should it demand and deprive couples with offsprings of social care intended to perpetuate the community and species. Please understand the same sex and man/ women sexual do not have the same end game! Adoption must compatible with contemporary social mores! Also gender roles for species propogation must be considered, the expectation of one’s social role when one becomes another’s parent. Currently, the more common family unit is a patriachal one!
I still cannot see what protection you are referring to that is needed for ‘the vulnerable, the baby and the long period he/she needs to become a fully fledged human being.’ And how since same sex couples are unable to bear offspring, it would deprive couples with offsprings of social care intended to perpetuate the community and species?
I split the difference between gay union and gay marriage, also gay marriage vs hereotosexual marriage. Both are unions but only one is procreational!
By the way, If marriage is all about having kids, wouldn’t letting a man or woman who is known to be sterile married defeats the whole purpose of the institution of marriage? If you look at the declining population in Singapore, having kids is certainly not a top priority for a great numbers of hereotosexual marriages here.
Political creatures will always be political creatures! They exploit whatever is to their political advantage! If you push an agenda too hard against current social mores be carefup of a social backlash! One must cultivate positive image and goodwill.
I do not think that putting in place laws that recognized same sex marriage is going to cause any negative political backlash against the present government. If it so, allowing the establishment of the two casinos here would have incurred even worst social furore. It may have cause unhappiness in some quarters but it certainly did not cause any major social backlash.