Two Gay wedding pictures , from Beijing, China

forkei

Two Gay wedding pictures，from Beijing, China

lagoon

What is it about watching women kiss each other?

atul2242

lagoon wrote:

What is it about watching women kiss each other?

THis is not about watching 2 women kiss each other but 2 people in love and wanting to live together.

Just as a matter of curosity - Is it leagal for gay people to marry in China?
What kind of rights do they gain ?
What is the status of Gay people in Chinese society?

THanks
Question

ptfrances

I am really happy to see that minds are changing in China too and as fast as the economic growth

harismushtaq

It does not seem to be 2 gay marriages but 1 gay and 1 lesbian marriage.

LimpFish

I was surprised to see this. I definitely thought this would not be allowed in China. Anyone knows anything about this? I thought China would be very conservative on these matters.

Libby

Adorable! I love looking at wedding pictures. They're always so cute!

Solon_Poledourus

2 more cute Chinese girls off the market... I need to step up my game.

Xanatos

Solon_Poledourus wrote:

2 more cute Chinese girls off the market... I need to step up my game.

I'm fairly certain your game could have been pristine and they still wouldn't have cared about you.

Solon_Poledourus

Xanatos wrote:

I'm fairly certain your game could have been pristine and they still wouldn't have cared about you.

Touche...

LimpFish

I'm not into asian girls no more after gettin my heart stomped on by one Razz

spring567

LimpFish wrote:

I was surprised to see this. I definitely thought this would not be allowed in China. Anyone knows anything about this? I thought China would be very conservative on these matters.

Yes,It is not allowed in China . It's illegal.

samjog

maybe im ignorant but i dont know a place where its legal? maybe somewhere in usa only? Anyway i dont support that.

Solon_Poledourus

samjog wrote:

maybe im ignorant but i dont know a place where its legal? maybe somewhere in usa only? Anyway i dont support that.

You are so right. Gays shouldn't have the same rights as other people, especially the right of marriage, which would give them things like life insurance benefits and joint tax filing. They should never have these things, that would make them almost... equal.

In fact, why stop with the prohibition of gay marriage? We should have laws against people marrying outside of their race or religion as well. With your help, we can probably get alot of groups into the "second class citizen" box. Give yourself a pat on the back.

LimpFish

Solon_Poledourus wrote:

samjog wrote:

maybe im ignorant but i dont know a place where its legal? maybe somewhere in usa only? Anyway i dont support that.

You are so right. Gays shouldn't have the same rights as other people, especially the right of marriage, which would give them things like life insurance benefits and joint tax filing. They should never have these things, that would make them almost... equal.

In fact, why stop with the prohibition of gay marriage? We should have laws against people marrying outside of their race or religion as well. With your help, we can probably get alot of groups into the "second class citizen" box. Give yourself a pat on the back.

It's all a matter of whose rights you are discussing. In your post it all sounds very simple, letting them marry gives them equal rights and that's it. In reality, letting them marry for instance gives them the right to adopt children, which has happened here in Sweden. And to be honest I value children's right to have a natural set of parents a loooot higher than homosexuals' right to marry. Afterall the law is supposed to protect the weak, and who is weaker than a child who cannot even speak his/her mind.

Bikerman

LimpFish wrote:

It's all a matter of whose rights you are discussing. In your post it all sounds very simple, letting them marry gives them equal rights and that's it. In reality, letting them marry for instance gives them the right to adopt children, which has happened here in Sweden. And to be honest I value children's right to have a natural set of parents a loooot higher than homosexuals' right to marry. Afterall the law is supposed to protect the weak, and who is weaker than a child who cannot even speak his/her mind.

a) Giving rights to marry does NOT automatically give rights to foster/adopt. The adoption/fostering system is distinct from the marriage system. Unmarried people routinely adopt/foster and, on the other hand, married couples are frequently not cleared to foster/adopt.
I have some personal experience here (being a foster carer in previous years), and whilst my own experiences are with the UK system, I doubt whether the Swedish system is radically different.
b) When you use the word 'natural' I presume you mean 'heterosexual'? Or perhaps you mean 'biological'? If you mean the former then you are being offensive, as well as inaccurate.
If you mean the latter then you would, to be consistent, have to take a similar position with regard to step-parents and other non-biological guardians.

LimpFish

Bikerman wrote:

LimpFish wrote:

It's all a matter of whose rights you are discussing. In your post it all sounds very simple, letting them marry gives them equal rights and that's it. In reality, letting them marry for instance gives them the right to adopt children, which has happened here in Sweden. And to be honest I value children's right to have a natural set of parents a loooot higher than homosexuals' right to marry. Afterall the law is supposed to protect the weak, and who is weaker than a child who cannot even speak his/her mind.

a) Giving rights to marry does NOT automatically give rights to foster/adopt. The adoption/fostering system is distinct from the marriage system. Unmarried people routinely adopt/foster and, on the other hand, married couples are frequently not cleared to foster/adopt.
I have some personal experience here (being a foster carer in previous years), and whilst my own experiences are with the UK system, I doubt whether the Swedish system is radically different.
b) When you use the word 'natural' I presume you mean 'heterosexual'? Or perhaps you mean 'biological'? If you mean the former then you are being offensive, as well as inaccurate.
If you mean the latter then you would, to be consistent, have to take a similar position with regard to step-parents and other non-biological guardians.

a. It might not be that the one thing is directly tied to the other, but in Sweden, the two of them were followed through pretty much around the same time, so they kinda walked hand in hand over here at least. Before, homosexuals couples were not allowed to adopt children, but around the time they got the right to marry sometime, they were also given the right to adopt children. I have no idea about how it works in other countries, but I do live in Sweden so I know how it happened here.

b. By "natural" I mean two parents that technically could have a child together. I.e. one mom and one dad. So that doesn't at all rule out step-parents or non-biological guardians. I believe that children are best off having both a male and a female parent.

Bikerman

LimpFish wrote:

a. It might not be that the one thing is directly tied to the other, but in Sweden, the two of them were followed through pretty much around the same time, so they kinda walked hand in hand over here at least. Before, homosexuals couples were not allowed to adopt children, but around the time they got the right to marry sometime, they were also given the right to adopt children. I have no idea about how it works in other countries, but I do live in Sweden so I know how it happened here.

You are conflating two distinct issues. It may be that Sweden decided to allow gay marriage and to allow gay adoption at the same time - for whatever reason. That does not mean that allowing gay marriage has any bearing on allowing gay adoption - they are different issues. Your original statement that

LimpFish wrote:

In reality, letting them marry for instance gives them the right to adopt children, which has happened here in Sweden.

is therefore incorrect and misleading.

LimpFish wrote:

b. By "natural" I mean two parents that technically could have a child together. I.e. one mom and one dad. So that doesn't at all rule out step-parents or non-biological guardians. I believe that children are best off having both a male and a female parent.

This is a very poor argument. Using this logic, of course, sterile couples should not be able to foster/adopt and nor should post menopausal women. The use of the word 'natural' is pretty meaningless in any context, but in this context, as I said, it is plain wrong. Homosexuality occurs in the 'natural' world in a huge number of species - is this 'un-natural'?
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html

LimpFish

Bikerman wrote:

LimpFish wrote:

a. It might not be that the one thing is directly tied to the other, but in Sweden, the two of them were followed through pretty much around the same time, so they kinda walked hand in hand over here at least. Before, homosexuals couples were not allowed to adopt children, but around the time they got the right to marry sometime, they were also given the right to adopt children. I have no idea about how it works in other countries, but I do live in Sweden so I know how it happened here.

You are conflating two distinct issues. It may be that Sweden decided to allow gay marriage and to allow gay adoption at the same time - for whatever reason. That does not mean that allowing gay marriage has any bearing on allowing gay adoption - they are different issues. Your original statement that

LimpFish wrote:

In reality, letting them marry for instance gives them the right to adopt children, which has happened here in Sweden.

is therefore incorrect and misleading.

LimpFish wrote:

b. By "natural" I mean two parents that technically could have a child together. I.e. one mom and one dad. So that doesn't at all rule out step-parents or non-biological guardians. I believe that children are best off having both a male and a female parent.

This is a very poor argument. Using this logic, of course, sterile couples should not be able to foster/adopt and nor should post menopausal women. The use of the word 'natural' is pretty meaningless in any context, but in this context, as I said, it is plain wrong. Homosexuality occurs in the 'natural' world in a huge number of species - is this 'un-natural'?
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html

I may have formulated that sentence in a bad way I admit that. However I still think the two are related, even if they are not directly affecting another. Letting homosexuals marry gives them even more leverage as to demand equal rights in other areas, whereas the arguments to deny them those rights are less, since they can marry, why shouldnt they be able to do everything other married couples do?

That my other argument is poor is your personal opinion, which you as always try to make sound as some kind of objective truth. To most people in this world, I believe, it is pretty obvious that one male and one female have the biological and physical requirements to together have a child, whereas two individuals of the same sex do not. Trying to compare that to that some couples cannot have babies because of some medical condition or because of age is obviously just childish. Everyone can see the difference between those two things.

That animals practice homosexuality is of no use for this discussion so I don't know why you refer to it (and don't tell me it's because of the word "natural", drop that word marking please, I've already explained what I mean by it), in case animals cannot produce offspring by homosexual activity, which I see no evidence of in that article.

Bikerman

LimpFish wrote:

I may have formulated that sentence in a bad way I admit that. However I still think the two are related, even if they are not directly affecting another. Letting homosexuals marry gives them even more leverage as to demand equal rights in other areas, whereas the arguments to deny them those rights are less, since they can marry, why shouldnt they be able to do everything other married couples do?

You don't see a problem with this argument? According to this line of 'reasoning' it would be best to classify homosexuals as 'sub human' because then they wouldn't be able to press for the right to marry in the first place. This logic is deeply disturbing.

Quote:

That my other argument is poor is your personal opinion, which you as always try to make sound as some kind of objective truth. To most people in this world, I believe, it is pretty obvious that one male and one female have the biological and physical requirements to together have a child, whereas two individuals of the same sex do not. Trying to compare that to that some couples cannot have babies because of some medical condition or because of age is obviously just childish. Everyone can see the difference between those two things.

We are not talking about 'creating a child' we are talking about acting as guardian for those children that, for whatever reason, need it. Your original point was about what was 'natural'. OK - let's drop that word because it is essentially meaningless (as I said before). If the question is about what happens in the animal kingdom and, therefore, whether human behaviour is somehow different then the answer is no. Some animals are monogamous, most are not. Some animals raise their young as a 'couple'. Most do not.

Quote:

That animals practice homosexuality is of no use for this discussion so I don't know why you refer to it (and don't tell me it's because of the word "natural", drop that word marking please, I've already explained what I mean by it), in case animals cannot produce offspring by homosexual activity, which I see no evidence of in that article.

Once again, this debate is not about creating offspring, it is about fostering/adoption. The article was EXTREMELY relevant - if you had read it you would see examples of where bi/homosexual animals act as 'guardians' for the young. For example

Quote:

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex.

LimpFish

Bikerman wrote:

LimpFish wrote:

I may have formulated that sentence in a bad way I admit that. However I still think the two are related, even if they are not directly affecting another. Letting homosexuals marry gives them even more leverage as to demand equal rights in other areas, whereas the arguments to deny them those rights are less, since they can marry, why shouldnt they be able to do everything other married couples do?

You don't see a problem with this argument? According to this line of 'reasoning' it would be best to classify homosexuals as 'sub human' because then they wouldn't be able to press for the right to marry in the first place. This logic is deeply disturbing.

Quote:

That my other argument is poor is your personal opinion, which you as always try to make sound as some kind of objective truth. To most people in this world, I believe, it is pretty obvious that one male and one female have the biological and physical requirements to together have a child, whereas two individuals of the same sex do not. Trying to compare that to that some couples cannot have babies because of some medical condition or because of age is obviously just childish. Everyone can see the difference between those two things.

We are not talking about 'creating a child' we are talking about acting as guardian for those children that, for whatever reason, need it. Your original point was about what was 'natural'. OK - let's drop that word because it is essentially meaningless (as I said before). If the question is about what happens in the animal kingdom and, therefore, whether human behaviour is somehow different then the answer is no. Some animals are monogamous, most are not. Some animals raise their young as a 'couple'. Most do not.

Quote:

That animals practice homosexuality is of no use for this discussion so I don't know why you refer to it (and don't tell me it's because of the word "natural", drop that word marking please, I've already explained what I mean by it), in case animals cannot produce offspring by homosexual activity, which I see no evidence of in that article.

Once again, this debate is not about creating offspring, it is about fostering/adoption. The article was EXTREMELY relevant - if you had read it you would see examples of where bi/homosexual animals act as 'guardians' for the young. For example

Quote:

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex.

The only difference between you and me is that you (in your own words) choose to make the children sub-humans without right to both a mother and a father. I do not think it is fair to give up children's rights to both a mom and a dad for homosexual couples' wishes to have a child even though they naturally couldnt (no silly comparisons to hetero couples who cannot have babies please). To me THIS logic is deeply disturbing.

My opinion is that children should be fostered/adopted/raised/whatever other synonyms there are by both a mom and a dad. I believe that the best thing is if they have both a male and a female role model. Sometimes that is not the case, as with single moms (or dads) which is unfortunate, but to let a child start its life off with two dads or two moms on purpose is to me letting that child down.

Bikerman

LimpFish wrote:

The only difference between you and me is that you (in your own words) choose to make the children sub-humans without right to both a mother and a father. I do not think it is fair to give up children's rights to both a mom and a dad for homosexual couples' wishes to have a child even though they naturally couldnt (no silly comparisons to hetero couples who cannot have babies please). To me THIS logic is deeply disturbing.

This is absolute nonsense.
a) The concept of a child having the 'right' to a mother and father is silly.
b) Children do not have full human rights protection in many areas - self determination being chief amongst them.

Quote:

My opinion is that children should be fostered/adopted/raised/whatever other synonyms there are by both a mom and a dad. I believe that the best thing is if they have both a male and a female role model. Sometimes that is not the case, as with single moms (or dads) which is unfortunate, but to let a child start its life off with two dads or two moms on purpose is to me letting that child down.

Based on what? Your emotional or religious feelings? Have you any evidence that children of same-sex couples do worse than children of heterosexual couples?

LimpFish

Bikerman wrote:

LimpFish wrote:

The only difference between you and me is that you (in your own words) choose to make the children sub-humans without right to both a mother and a father. I do not think it is fair to give up children's rights to both a mom and a dad for homosexual couples' wishes to have a child even though they naturally couldnt (no silly comparisons to hetero couples who cannot have babies please). To me THIS logic is deeply disturbing.

This is absolute nonsense.
a) The concept of a child having the 'right' to a mother and father is silly.
b) Children do not have full human rights protection in many areas - self determination being chief amongst them.

Quote:

My opinion is that children should be fostered/adopted/raised/whatever other synonyms there are by both a mom and a dad. I believe that the best thing is if they have both a male and a female role model. Sometimes that is not the case, as with single moms (or dads) which is unfortunate, but to let a child start its life off with two dads or two moms on purpose is to me letting that child down.

Based on what? Your emotional or religious feelings? Have you any evidence that children of same-sex couples do worse than children of heterosexual couples?

That is probably the most stupid thing I have heard this whole week. So you are using the fact that children doesn't have full human rights protection in all areas as an argument to remove rights from other areas too? Sure, then why should children have the right to get an education, health care, or not be beaten by their parents? Self determination is the chief amongst the rights they do not have anyways.

Opinions and arguments like these scare me quite frankly. I base my own opinions on the matter both on that's obviously how it's meant to be (you can deny it as much as you want) and on that men and women are different, no question about it, they both bring something to the parenting of the child that a homosexual couple's adoptive child would miss out on. But since internet links seem to be the Gods in who you trust blindly I provide a link for you too:

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

Bikerman

LOL..yes Hansen is well known for her views - which you seem to parrot so closely that I presume you are a fan?
I recommend Thomas Marra's analysis of her 'opinion pieces'.

(Marra is also a clinical psychologist).

LimpFish

Bikerman wrote:

LOL..yes Hansen is well known for her views - which you seem to parrot so closely that I presume you are a fan?
I recommend Thomas Marra's analysis of her 'opinion pieces'.

(Marra is also a clinical psychologist).

Actually never heard about her before I stumbled upon her while googling.

Guess you did not have any response to the rest of my post since you ignored it. I understand you though as it's hard to argue against what is obviously correct Wink

Auctus

Solon_Poledourus wrote:

2 more cute Chinese girls off the market... I need to step up my game.

lol.