scholarly journals 也談同性戀與婚姻

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-76
Author(s):  
Fei WU
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Greek Culture ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Relationship

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Xianglong Zhang’s position on same-sex marriage is tolerance with reservations. He contends that Confucianism does not affirm or deny homosexuality as ancient Greek culture or Christianity did, because it regards homosexuality and same-sex marriage as two completely separate issues. By distinguishing marriage from homosexuality, the Confucian view proposed by Zhang neither violates the freedom of homosexuals nor affects the order of marriage and family. It can provide a more sensible perspective for people to understand the relationship between homosexuality and marriage in today’s world.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 192 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals 家庭與社會公義

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-48
Author(s):  
Lawrence YUNG
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sexual Freedom ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Family ◽  
Gender Neutrality ◽  
Heterosexual Marriage

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Mark Cherry’s article identifies claims regarding individual autonomy, gender neutrality, and rights to sexual freedom as taking a commanding place within the secular liberal recasting of the family to grant same-sex marriage the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Cherry refers to Plato’s proposal of abolishing family in Republic (Book V) as a precursor to reforming the family to engineer currently favored versions of social justice. This paper adds to the discussion on family and social justice with an explication of this proposal of abolishing family and a comparison with the Confucian ideal of Great Unity.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 122 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

scholarly journals 權利與善——論同性婚姻

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-114
Author(s):  
Xudong FANG
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
Reductio Ad Absurdum ◽  
Traditional Marriage ◽  
Heterosexual Marriage ◽  
The Ideal

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.本文由兩個部分構成，第一部分闡述了不反對同性婚姻合法化的理由，逐一討論了對同性婚姻合法化的五種反對意見，認為它們都不成立。第二部分論述了儒家推崇異性婚姻的原因，其主要考慮是同性婚姻不能像異性婚姻那樣可以提供倫理的完整性。作者強調，作為公民權利，同性婚姻可以被自由追求，但作為儒家則以異性婚姻為婚姻的理想模式。前者事關權利，後者事關“善”，有各自的界限，不得逾越。This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, the author refutes, one by one, five objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including arguments grounded in naturalness, origin, reductio ad absurdum, compromising traditional marriage, and Jiang Qing’s doctrine of particular human rights. The strongest reason for advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doctrine of equal rights. As contemporary people, we have no reason to deny that all individuals have equal rights. The second part discusses why Confucianism prefers heterosexual marriage. The main consideration is that same-sex marriages cannot provide ethical integrity, as heterosexual marriages do. The author emphasizes that, as a civil right, same-sex marriage can be pursued freely, but for a Confucian, heterosexual marriage is the ideal mode of marriage. The former concerns what is “right,” whereas the latter relates to what is “good.” There is an insurmountable boundary between right and good.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 423 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Same-Sex Relationships

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna L. Grossman ◽  
Lawrence M. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Family ◽  
Traditional Marriage ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

This chapter describes what might be the last battleground over “traditional” marriage—same-sex marriage, and the social and legal revolution that brought us from an era in which it was never contemplated to one in which, depending on the state, it is either expressly authorized or expressly prohibited. Same-sex marriage has posed—and continues to pose—a challenge to traditional definitions of marriage and family. But, more importantly, the issue implies broader changes in family law—the increasing role of constitutional analysis; limits on the right of government to regulate the family; and the clash between the traditional family form and a new and wider menu of intimate and household arrangements, and all this against the background of the rise of a stronger form of individualism.

Legislating for Same-Sex Marriage: Sophistical Effectiveness in Australian Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Lilienthal
Keyword(s):  
Canon Law ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Marriage Law ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Public Mind ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Mind Argument

AbstractThis paper by-passes the various public tropes, such as “marriage equality”, and concentrates on determining whether or not a same-sex marriage law would be sophistically effective in Australia. It revives the ancient Greek sophistical rhetorical skill of proposing a law, and applies it as a critical context to the topic of legislating for same-sex marriage. The objective is to assess whether or not a same-sex marriage law will be effective in its legislative objects. It proposes to discuss whether the parliament could introduce such a law so that the law’s objects were achieved effectively in the public mind. Argument will try to show that introducing a law to create same-sex marriage would fail because of subsisting priestly legislation on the subject of marriage. Its two hypotheses are that the canon law and other English priestly legislation restrict the scope of marriage regulation, and marriage could not be re-defined to cover same-sex marriage. Sections of the paper examining the law historically employ the historiographical method of identifying underlying norms, the effect of which is occasional reverse chronologies. The article’s conclusion will assert that a statute for legal and duly registered same-sex marriage likely would be, according to sophistical rhetorical reasoning, a fiction misrepresenting the truth of the subsisting legal and social institutions of marriage.

scholarly journals In Defense of Tradition: Religiosity, Conservatism, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in North America

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 1455-1468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jojanneke van der Toorn ◽  
John T. Jost ◽  
Dominic J. Packer ◽  
Sharareh Noorbaloochi ◽  
Jay J. Van Bavel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Resistance To Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sexual Prejudice ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Conservative Ideology ◽  
Political Conservatism ◽  
The Relationship

Arguments opposing same-sex marriage are often made on religious grounds. In five studies conducted in the United States and Canada (combined N = 1,673), we observed that religious opposition to same-sex marriage was explained, at least in part, by conservative ideology and linked to sexual prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we discovered that the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage was mediated by explicit sexual prejudice. In Study 3, we saw that the mediating effect of sexual prejudice was linked to political conservatism. Finally, in Studies 4a and 4b we examined the ideological underpinnings of religious opposition to same-sex marriage in more detail by taking into account two distinct aspects of conservative ideology. Results revealed that resistance to change was more important than opposition to equality in explaining religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

Demokratia and Arete in Ancient Greek Political Thought

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Wallach
Keyword(s):  
Political Thought ◽  
Fourth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Athenian Democracy ◽  
Political Dimension ◽  
Greek Culture ◽  
History Of ◽  
Three Stages ◽  
The Relationship

This article interprets demokratia and arete as dynamically related terms of political thought in ancient Greek culture, from Homeric times to the end of the classical era. It does so selectively, identifying three stages in which this relationship is developed: (1) from the Homeric to archaic eras; (2) fifth-century Athenian democracy, in which demokratia and arete are posed as complementary terms; and (3) the fourth century era in which philosophers used virtue to critique democracy. Relying mostly on evidence from writers who have become benchmarks in the history of Western political thought, the argument emphasizes the inherently political dimension of arete during this period of ancient Greek culture. Noting different ways in which arete is related to political power in general and democracy in particular, it also illustrates the manner in which arete is neither philosophically pristine nor merely an instrument of practical power. The effect of the research contradicts traditional and recent readings of democracy and virtue as inherently antagonistic. The aim of the article is to identify ancient Greek contributions to understanding the potential, contingencies and dangers of the relationship between democracy (as a form of power) and virtue (as a form of ethics) — one which may benefit both democracy and virtue.

scholarly journals 同性婚姻和儒家倫理——回應方旭東教授

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-123
Author(s):  
Xiaohu DENG
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
Heterosexual Marriage

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.Fang Xudong’s paper is in general well-argued. However, I raise two considerations to facilitate further discussion. First, I suggest that Jiang Qing’s idea of particular rights deserves further examination. In particular, it seems reasonable to claim that there are indeed fundamental differences between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage. Second, I suggest that Confucianism need not embrace the idea that heterosexual marriage is the only way to fulfil Confucian values.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 180 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

1. Family relationships, marriage, civil partnership, cohabitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Susan Heenan ◽  
Anna Heenan
Keyword(s):  
Family Relationships ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Forced Marriage ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Civil Partnership ◽  
Joint Ownership ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in an exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on family relationships, marriage, same sex marriage, civil partnership, forced marriage, and cohabitation, beginning with a discussion of the absence of a widely acceptable definition regarding the concept of ‘family’. It examines how marriage was defined in Hyde v Hyde (1866), and the definition of civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The concept of ‘common law marriage’ and the rights of those cohabiting is considered, along with the importance of formalities to end marriage and civil partnership. It also highlights the rights of parties to a marriage or civil partnership to acquire rights over property during the relationship on the basis of trusts law or proprietary estoppel. Finally, it looks at calls to reform the law in relation to cohabitants, particularly with regard to joint ownership of property.

scholarly journals 轉變與堅持: 回應婚姻與家庭觀念的改變

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Chih Wei HSIEH
Keyword(s):  
Gender Roles ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Family Values ◽  
Traditional Values ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Digital Commons ◽  
The Face ◽  
Gender Neutrality

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.As the cornerstone of today’s pro-same-sex-marriage rhetoric, Western Liberalism is often placed in opposition to Christianity and Confucianism. Under a fashionable preference for liberal values, Christianity and Confucianism’s adaptation to the modern value of gender equality has been under-valued. Gender neutrality remains controversial in Christianity and Confucianism because distinct gender roles serve to maintain morality. Further, the shortcomings of liberally oriented family values and the danger of favoringindividuality over social norms are often undiscussed. This article aims to remind readers that rights ought to be balanced with morality, and that traditional values can still serve our present age, even in the face of change.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 351 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document