An article by correspondent Emily Rauhala in the Washington Post (“A backlash against same-sex marriage tests Taiwan’s reputation for gay rights,” April 20) caught my attention, as it addressed the ongoing same-sex marriage debate in Taiwan and the counter-push by certain conservative Christian groups in Taiwan against equal marriage rights.
Having lived in Taiwan for five years now and writing my MA thesis on the topic of homoeroticism in traditional Chinese history, culture and literature at National Taiwan University (NTU), I have a few relevant thoughts to add to this discussion, which may provide a more accurate socio-cultural context in which to examine this contentious topic.
The article quotes Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san (邱太三), who argued that same-sex relationships are a “newly invented phenomenon” unlike “social norms and mechanisms formed by the people of our nation over the past 1,000 years,” and that same-sex marriages would create problems as related to elements of ancestor worship.
Others who oppose same-sex marriage agree, believing that same-sex love and marriage are a Western invention, and not part of traditional Chinese and Taiwanese culture.
Sadly, the opposition could not be more wrong. They are not only on the wrong side of history on this issue, but have a clear lack of understanding of their own “traditional culture” when it comes to same-sex relationships.
The phenomenon of same-sex relationships in Chinese culture and history actually goes back much further than just the “past thousand years,” appearing at least as far back as the Book of Songs (詩經), written between the 11th and the seventh century BC. It is a phenomenon that is pervasive throughout all of the dynastic histories and popular literature.
The tradition of same-sex love, or “homoeroticism” (男色) as it was more commonly known, can be seen in a multitude of deeply revered Chinese literary and historical works, from the Biographies of the Emperors’ Male Favorites (佞幸列傳) in the Records of the Historian (史記) and A New Account of Tales of the World (世說新語) to Cao Xueqin’s (曹雪芹) masterpiece Dream of the Red Chamber (紅樓夢), to name just a few out of many hundreds of well-known examples.
Well-known expressions such as “cut sleeve” (斷袖), “half-eaten peach” (餘桃) and the “passion of Lord Longyang” (龍陽之情) clearly prove that same-sex love and homoeroticism have played an important part in Chinese culture.
In fact, it was with the arrival of the Western missionaries that the acceptance — and celebration — of homoeroticism changed.
Westerners did not, as anti-same-sex marriage campaigners believe, bring the concept of same-sex love to Asia, but rather the opposite: Using a contorted view of Judeo-Christian moral standards, they sought to diminish and erase an illustrious and unique Chinese tradition spanning thousands of years.
There are even stories of actual same-sex marriage in China’s Fujian Province — where most Taiwanese trace back to — as far back as the Ming and Qing Dynasties, such as in the story A male Mencius’s mother raises her son properly by moving house three times (男孟母教合三遷) by the great author Li Yu (李漁).
With such a well-documented tradition, people who oppose same-sex relationships — and marriage — on grounds of “tradition” or “conservative values” clearly lack a well-rounded knowledge of the traditions, customs and culture of which they speak. They might want to consult a copy of my master’s thesis or any number of other well-researched books and academic articles that discuss this topic at much greater length.
With this knowledge they would need to find another excuse for their prejudiced and uninformed positions.
Finally, the Washington Post article also mentions protesters in support of same-sex marriage praying to the goddess Matsu (媽祖) to help them achieve success in legalizing same-sex marriage in Taiwan.
However, there is actually already a guardian deity for LGBT people: Hu Tianbao (胡天保), who even happens to have a temple in his honor in Taipei’s Yonghe District (永和).
Perhaps he would be the more appropriate deity to pray to, and I will proudly stand with my LGBT brothers and sisters in Taiwan to do so.
David Evseeff works as a translator and interpreter in the US and holds an MA in Chinese Literature from National Taiwan University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath