GAY MARRIAGE NOW LEGAL IN TAIWAN

>>8336903
>more judges overruling democracy

>some country in the middle of nowhere using gays to upset China
Sounds surprisingly similar to
>liberals using gays to upset conservatives

From this we can safely conclude that lgbt rights are in fact just a meme and that both our "friends" and enemies are in essence the same group of people.

>>8336979
Nah, one of them wants to import people who want us thrown off buildings and the other wants to import slightly fewer.

>be gay
>live in GOOD asia
>near to no terror attacks
>great place to retire and chill
>have many gay friends, both asian and non asian
>asian men are hot and also QTs
>as long as your not up in people's faces about it no one will care if you're gay

feels very good man, o I am laffin at the fools who decide to live in rotten Europe still

File: hdImg_61f276509a25f8c53229914a8b2d76b31491966957985.png (435KB, 611x611px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 611x611px

Honestly, I am local Chinese and we really don't need these marriage equality tricks. Government won't bother you unless you set up a porn webset without registation etc. Government also won't shut down any gaybar, they closed only for overly-high house rent...

On the other side, the truth that while Taiwanese politics went really out of control they're still trying to decorate it with these gay marriage nonsense only makes me feel pitiful and sympathy.

>>8336924
>Supporting tyranny of the majority

Fuck off, literal pleb.

>>8337021
Republican democracy.

>>8337084
Sure, as long as it's modelled after Rome with less power to the idiots.

>>8336924
>hurr muh democracy is dead because judges did it
>no understanding of the purpose of judges
Did they vote recently to ban it? No? Then shit your fucking mouth, you are the worst kind of person that can only be cured by a bullet through the fucking head. cry more, faggot

>>8337102
Roma, Britain, America. There's lots of models.

>>8337105
>Did they vote recently to ban it? No?
Sounds like you don't understand the purpose of judges.

>>8337115
I'm aware. I'm just not sure what the point is.

>>8337131
>High courts have more power than I think they should
That is the only thing you can say. You can pretend it's an objective issue.

>>8337148
Just pointing out that your thinking whether a vote was recent or not reveals that you have no idea or care for the purpose of the judiciary.

>>8337171
Not him.

>>8337178
>Just pointing out that their thinking whether a vote was recent or not reveals that they have no idea or care for the purpose of the judiciary.

>>8337188
Cool.

>>8336924
>courts make slavery illegal
>judges overturning democracy baka!!!11!!1

>>8337010
where is GOOD asia

>>8337218
When have courts ever made slavery illegal? It only happens through democratic decisions.

>>8337131
What I'm saying is if it went to a vote it would probably pass anyways, its not like it went against public opinion, you're just butthurt because you dont like that courts have the authority to do it and cry "muh democracy" when they exercise power given to them, you're like the people that cry about presidents using executive actions

>>8337010
only GOOD asia is japan or indonesia

>>8337242
>What I'm saying is if it went to a vote it would probably pass anyways, its not like it went against public opinion,
Yeah this is where you don't understand the point of the courts.

>you're like the people that cry about presidents using executive actions
Presidents are elected in case you've forgotten.

>>8337255
I'm saying democracy wasn't overturned because democracy didn't decide it should be illegal, it would be one thing if the people voted down gay marriage and then the courts said "lol naw" but that's not what happened

>>8337251
>Indonesia
>GOOD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39996224

>>8337251
Japan isn't exactly good either.

>>8337262
Like I said, you don't understand the function of the courts if you really believe that.

>>8336924
Constitution > people's opinions.

>>8337292
I doubt Taiwan's courts stick any closer to the Constitution than the USA's.

>>8337300
Most governments wipe their asses with the constitution so at this point it really makes no difference anymore.

>>8337312
The first part may be true but you're wrong on it making no difference. The two giant differences are that governments were elected and can be got rid of in future elections.

>>8337300
I don't really get the whole "tyranny of the courts" fear. When has a high court took over a government? It's always either a military coup or a tyrant with the support of the people.

The courts just serve to annoy libertarians.

>>8337222
East Asia and South East Asia excluding the muslim countries. No issues for being a gay male here. Opposite for dykes lol

>>8337270
What's wrong with Japan? No issues when i've been there. Old people are bigoted as fuck but that's same for all old people over the world. Like I said, as long as you keep your sexuality to your self you'll have no problem here

>>8337360
You know there are plenty of ways an institution can do harm without taking over a country, right?

And there are plenty of non-libertarian reasons to criticize courts, just like there are libertarian reasons to support them.

You seem to have a very black and white perspective, no nuance.

>>8337458
No, I have plenty of nuance. I simply don't see how courts determining groups have rights the majority may disagree with is necessarily harmful.

>>8337472
>I have plenty of nuance.
>I simply don't care about the actual issues and principles involves so long as I like the outcome.
FTFY

You're literally saying the equivalent of agreeing with a dictator seizing supreme power as long as the only thing he's done that's made it to the news is something you like.

>>8336903
I don't have anything too relevant to say about this matter, but I'd like to thank OP for not being a faggot for once and for posting an actual news story rather than

"Blaire White BTFO!!!" or whatever

>>8337345
>governments were elected and can be got rid of in future elections.
That's assuming the elected government that wipes its ass with the constitution still cares about elections.

Supreme court isn't some almighty institution, and basically it's function is to ensure that the government doesn't pass laws that violate the constitution.
If the people or the government disagree then they "disagree" with the constitution, and thus their aim should then be to change it.

>>8337573
Your defense of courts assuming too much power and ignoring their proper role is "what is the government cancels elections"? Seriously?

>>8337514
Not really. I disagree with a lot the SCOTUS has done, things like Citizens United. I actually disagreed with their rationale for Obergefell.

I read the opinions. That's why I don't have much fear of them. But I don't care to go into why I have faith in the Justices to act on principle. I've had this exact same argument with someone with your views on another board and there's nothing fun about arguing it twice.

>>8337579
You're saying that when the government blatantly abuses its power it's somehow less scary than when supreme court does it, based solely on government being elected.

Dictators do not get elected out of office. They get kicked out of them.

>>8337618
Legalizing gay marriage is a blatant abuse of powers now?

>>8337588
>I actually disagreed with their rationale for Obergefell.

why ?

>>8338265
They used a rather roundabout way to guarantee the right to gay marriage by creating precedent where there wasn't any instead of just using the more obvious route as set by Loving.

I mean, the reason for that is probably to keep the ruling narrow so incest/polygamy couldn't end up being legalized from the precedent set, but it seemed like a dishonest way to approach it. Even John Roberts during the oral argument prodded at a different reasoning which would make it a gender equality issue, and that would have been a better rationale in my opinion.

I'm just not a fan of the SCOTUS interpreting something in a way where there's little to no precedence, even if it's specifically to keep the ruling conservative.

>>8338354
>I mean, the reason for that is probably to keep the ruling narrow so incest/polygamy couldn't end up being legalized from the precedent set, but it seemed like a dishonest way to approach it.
Haha, you make it sound like they had the decision in advance and worked backwards to find ways to justify it under the law!

>>8338446
Which is why I said I disagreed with it....

Are you illiterate, by chance?

What's the difference between Taiwan and Thailand? Which the one China hates?

>>8338572
Thailand is an island notorious for its pedophile rings and ladyboys.

Taiwan is China's rebellious little island brother.

>>8338571
You didn't actually say why you thought it was dishonest FYI.

>>8337292

You're implying constitutions are a necessity for societies. The UK and New Zealand don't have written constitutions.

>>8338647
San Marino and Israel too.

TAIWAN NUMBA WAN

>>8338594
>Thailand is an island
retard alert

>>8336979
This one gets it.

>>8338606
Reread my post. The last paragraph explains that. Jfc.

Why does gay marriage really matter?

>>8339874
You can live without it. But if one group of people are allowed it and another group is not - that can cause trouble down the line. A married couple is a family unit, given certain protections and afforded different rights. Your lover is sick and you want to see them? Their family doesn't like You? You won't see them because you have no relation to them. Simple things like that can be taken from you - especially in a culture where family is everything. Plus it sets a tone, that gays are human and deserving of the same treatment under the law. If you aren't given something as basic as a marriage license that sends a signal to the rest of society that you are abnormal and can be treated lesser. If this generation is granted gay marriage, the next generation is taught gay marriage exists, which turns into another generation where gays are seen as less and less a "threat" and more accepted in a society. Eventually the idea is homophobia won't be as rampant as populations become more understanding and exposed to gays - seeing them as just other people.

>>8338572
We don't hate any of them, government either. Taiwanese older generation loves China. Younger kids might have some prejudices...

>>8336924
>democracy, the political system that gives power to large masses of dumb people.

>>8339874
There's actual benefits to being married yo. Tax breaks and visitation rights for married people are a thing. Besides that, your goverment actually acknowledges you're a citizen who deserves equal rights.
I live in the Philippines, people keep saying it's the most gay friendly. It's gay-friendly compared to other neighboring countries but DESU it's just gay tolerant. So yeah good job Taiwan.

>>8337255
They're elected by people who aren't elected.

>>8336979
>this is what /pol/ crossposters actually believe

>>8340926
Because it's true.

>>8340990
Not everything that happens in the world is a play in 4D chess. Something /pol/ will never understand is just how isolated actions taken in government actually can be. Not everything is a command by """""them""""".

>>8340990
Yeah, progressives implement gay rights to annoy conservatives not to um, give gays rights. How retarded can you get?

>>8341208
The shallowness of what you consider to be "gay rights" is the proof.

>>8341302
Well I don't know what else you think gays should be fighting for at this point.

>>8341308
Exactly. You literally can't even think of actual rights. You can only think of tokenistic virtue signals.

Because >>8336979 was right.

>>8341313
Or maybe some of us actually wanted the ability to legally marry?

I can't fathom why that's hard to imagine.

>>8341318
When's your wedding set for?

Didn't think so.

>>8341379
>Unless you're currently getting married, you can't ever want the option

This is bait, right?

>>8341396
No, just assessing the integrity of your view of "gay rights".

>>8341398
I don't see what your point is, then.

>Gay people want to get married like straight people
>Some straight people don't like this and try to stop them
>Gay people organize to get it to happen anyway

What's the problem with this?

>>8341412
The same as the point has been since the start. That you care more about virtue signalling than rights.

>>8341444
Again, how? I legitimately want some day to be able to marry a man.

I'm so confused as to what part of that you aren't getting.

Your use of /pol/ buzzwords has made it impossible for you to think things in this world exist outside of them.

>>8341602
>Again, how?
When did you ask before?

>>8341650
It's not the first time you implied people only support gay marriage to virtue signal.

But you're just being pedantic at this point, so obviously youre just messing with me. Good show.

>>8341714
Dishonest and backing out.

>>8341721(You)

>>8341802
Good one.