Nisa

Not long ago homosexuality was considered an of fence punishable by death only recently was the law changed

But normally its straight men that go with lady-boys not gays, because gays don't fancy girls, "understand that?"

If believing this is what makes a man who is turned on by penis feel better about himself then more power too him. Nothing against anybody into ladyboys but a penis is a penis regardless if a couple boobs are not far away.

To be honest, i really dont see a problem here. If this is what he likes who has the right to tell him hes in the wrong??

At first I thought the same thing until I saw the other picture . If a politician is going to be grabbing a boob in public while knowingly getting his photo taken then I think it could be very telling in terms of his judgement abilities. Don't care if the boob is attached to a women or ladyboy ... just not too bright for a politician. But wouldn't condemn the guy over one picture as pictures can be very deceiving when it comes to these types of things and he may not actually be feeling her/him up as it appears he is..

How did he get the visa to enter Thailand and a job in the first place????

Any monkey can get a visa to enter Thailand and any other country - when was the last time you were checked for a criminal record?

Lots of countries do a criminal conviction check before issuing a visa. Many people have been refused visas to the UK because they have criminal convictions.

The country would either need access to the other countries criminal database which means they would need an incredibly close relationship or the person would need to provide a certified copy (translated if needed) of their criminal record from their home country for the Visa issuing country to know of any convictions ... unless of course the person simply admits it.

What tolerance? Thais who have changed their sex through surgery STILL can't get the sex changed on their ID card. Thai tolerance is WAY OVERRATED by foreigners.

I am on the fence on this one as I believe every person has the right to know if the person they may take home used to be a different sex. In this case I think an added designation(s) should be made to properly identify them as what they actually are which is neither fully male or female. Give them all the rights they want in their new gender but lets not lie and deceive others of what they actually are.

In the US you can change your Passport to say you're a women even if you are a man who never had any kind of surgery. This is just getting a bit carried away and makes identifying sex on a passport a moot point. http://transequality.org/Resources/passports_2012.pdf

OK ... this one maybe does show he was doing some groping ...

http://english.sina.com/china/p/2013/0415/582173.html

Looks like he had his picture taken with performers after a show.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2013/pictures/chinese-officials-watch-sex-shows-fondle-ladyboys-in-thailand.html

Sounds like somebody is out to screw this guy and it ain't the ladyboys.

I find it terrifying how cars, trucks, vans, and buses here just crumple into nothing like a coke can when they have an accident. Witnessed a lot of nasty accidents in my home country and never seen so many vehicles crumple so easily. Do car makers not have any safety features / reinforcements in cars and no crumple zones? I even see these crumpled messes on new cars from name brand makers. The bus makers just make them without a plan and no safety at all, this much I know, but cars and trucks should not rip apart like they do.

Shows you how terribly fast they are travelling upon impact.

Cars tend to look worse in crashes now than they used to because they absorb more of the impact outside of the passenger compartment. This is what "crumple zones" do but if you are not wearing a safety belt you still are going to be screwed.

Potosi makes an interesting point here. The next thing after gay 'marriage' will be bisexuals (The B in GLBTI) wanting to marry both a man and a woman because marrying only one person would deny them the right to fully express their sexuality. And if all three are consenting adults, who could possibly object to that?

It as if now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel looking desperately for some kind of argument....and they're getting more and more facile.

As the man says - Legalising gay marriage will not open any flood gates, it just gives the opportunity for some people to be able to live like the rest of us. there will be no threat to the fabric of society, in fact it might actually gicve the institution of marriage a much needed jolt in the arm......maybe gays can do for marriage what they did for musical theatre?

So you're saying that you would definitely draw the line after gay marriage and oppose any further loosening of the rules?

I don't think I agree with your views but like you I am confused how somebody can be for gay marriage but be against having multiple spouses or even marrying a relative if everyone involved is a consenting adult. I personally can think of no reason against multiple spouses except for the definition of marriage and as for marrying a relative, just like homosexuals, they don't need to have their own children to marry. Just seems a bit hypocritical if somebody believes in opening up the definition for themselves and their group but not for other who also suffer because of the laws and actually see opening up the laws to include other groups as scraping the bottom of the barrel. Pretty sure many would be highly offended if that term was used to describe changing the laws for homosexuals.

This is stupid, homosexuals should hav the sames right as heterosexuals do, they should be able to get married, adopt etc the same that hetero.

Homosexuals do have the same rights as other people. They're free to marry a person of the opposite sex any time they like, just like the rest of us. This current fad for same sex "marriage" undermines and trivialises the importance of real marriage. Before long they'll be demanding the right to marry their dog, their mother, their iPad or God knows what else. Where does it stop?

It is a situation of where does it all end.

If same sex marriages, why not multiple partner marriages, as in Islam and Mormon religions.

Then any sense of 'equality' is mocked.

Nothing wrong with that, if one man and some women one to live together and want to get married, why not? whats wrong with that?Marriage is nothing holly or sacrosant, marriage is just a legal institution to say that in the eyes of the law you and your partners are familly and therefore have certain rights and duties, nothing more nothing else.

While I tend to agree with you, there is a heck of a lot of people who don't and see marriage as much more on both sides be it those who believe in the sanctity of marriage or those who believe that a Civil Union, which provides the same rights, is a form of discrimination and not a satisfactory solution. The problem is that governments have taken the churches word (marriage) and the churches definition of marriage to make law on domestic partnership agreements even in countries that provide freedom of religion. It is time for governments to use this as an opportunity to further separate church and state and get out of the marriage business and simply issue partnership contracts that have absolutely nothing to do with people's sex lives or having to have sex to finalize the agreement and give marriage back to churches and/or the personal beliefs of the people. This would solve everyone's problem except those wanting to make problems for others.

Marriage is something the government recognized from the church but it now has become something the government dictates. To further separate church and state marriage is a business the government needs to get out of.

Better for the Church to get out of the business

Sounds like you might be more interested in negative attention than actually looking for equal rights.

Well the marriage 'imstitution' is already pretty messed up with divorce rates so high. Introducing off topic items doesn't help either. Actually I'm sure gay & lesbian couples would probably settle for equal rights of inheritance, adoption, tax benefits, etc enjoyed by married couples - without the 'married' tag.

What rights do gay & lesbian couples have ? I know couples that have been together for years, both men and women Gay couples one couple that have been together over 40 years, one had an accident, the other could not even see him in Hospital, as not a wife or family member.. if one partner dies, the remaining partner has no rights or say in anything they have or had together for a life time.. Is that right ?

Here for Immigration or going anywhere for a Visa = must be married to a Thai lady, yet there are many same sex couples that have been together for many many years here and have 0 say and 0 rights.

So a man and a women get a bit of paper signed to say there are partners, called marriage paper, cannot see any problem with 2 men or 2 women getting a partnership paper so they can have equal rights

Does the paper have to say "marriage" or can it be a "civil union" that gives all the same rights as being married? I think there is a good number of people (if not most against) who are against "gay marriage" but have no issue with granting them the same rights. It is about the sanctity of marriage.

And personally this is why I believe marriages should take place on a personal level and the government should only grant civil unions to any consenting adults wishing to enter into a legal contract. Don't most government require consummation (intercourse) for a marriage to be legal? What the hell is that? Government forcing sex on people to receive benefits or recognition???? And how does a homosexual person have intercourse when intercourse requires both a vagina and penis by definition .... forgetting about those with sexual function or organ problems being able to consummate a marriage.

Leave it up to the individuals, groups or churches they belong to define marriage and simply let the government process the paperwork which effectively creates a business partnership.

There are some countries, such as the US, where civil union and marriage are two different things.

That said, what do you think people are going to call a civil union in ordinary speech? They'll call it marriage. They won't say, "We're in a civil union"; they'll say, We're married".

So, unless there is a legal difference between the two states (i.e. civil union gives fewer rights), discussion of whether to have civil union or marriage is rather futile.... they'll boil down to the same thing in the end.

Not at all. Many people are married now but not legally. You can get married in a ceremony in a church or elsewhere and not file a legal document with the government ... and many people do this and this is the way it should be .... none of the governments business. On the other hand if you want to enter into what amount as a legally binding business relationship then you should be welcome to do this and you can define yourself as being in a civil union or whatever term is easy to use. The government can even come up with a 1 or 2 syllable word if there is great objection to having to say something harder than marriage.

Marriage is something the government recognized from the church but it now has become something the government dictates. To further separate church and state marriage is a business the government needs to get out of.

Edit: Interesting to note too in some places people don't get married and never wanted to get married but the government declares them legally married such as with common law marriage.

and mostly likely the UK in the not too distant future

Thought it had ??

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24957/gay-marriage-uk-country-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-america-falls-behind

Edit:

>>We can add them to the list when it becomes a reality.

23 April 2013

France has become the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage , pushing through François Hollande's flagship social change after months of street protests

April 24 2013

Hollande said he would sign the bill, approved in its final second reading by parliament on Tuesday, into law as soon as France's Constitutional Council rules on a challenge filed by right-wing lawmakers. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/hollande-urges-france-to-move-on-after-g/651306.html

Bottom line is they are going to have it (if they don't already) but technically I don't think it is actually law yet. It passed the voted but believe it still needs to be signed and published. All kind of a moot point though.

The UK has only passed a bill and still more steps needed to make it law. I believe their goal is to have it law in 2015. But again a moot point. Many countries are moving in this direction but the point being it is still early but the more the do then the more will join.

The purpose of Thai "legislation" that apes Western legislation is not now, never was, and never will be about reforming Thai society. It's about Thais posturing to show themselves and their country to be "modern", "enlightened", and "up to date." It's not like they'd ever actually allow any meaningful or effective implementing regulation to be adopted let alone enforced.

Well then they are doing what it takes by talking about it and not actually acting because as far as I can tell same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in only Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

Add New Zealand and France to the list from the last couple of weeks and mostly likely the UK in the not too distant future.

Not recognized in these countries yet. We can add them to the list when it becomes a reality. In NZ I don't believe it has taken effect yet (later this year) and don't believe it has been signed into law yet in France and England has still not passed any law.

Edit: Many of these countries on the list just passed laws very recently and I'd expect to see the numbers increase dramatically n the coming years and also expect Thailand to be one of these countries ... probably long before the US.

Well the marriage 'imstitution' is already pretty messed up with divorce rates so high. Introducing off topic items doesn't help either. Actually I'm sure gay & lesbian couples would probably settle for equal rights of inheritance, adoption, tax benefits, etc enjoyed by married couples - without the 'married' tag.

What rights do gay & lesbian couples have ? I know couples that have been together for years, both men and women Gay couples one couple that have been together over 40 years, one had an accident, the other could not even see him in Hospital, as not a wife or family member.. if one partner dies, the remaining partner has no rights or say in anything they have or had together for a life time.. Is that right ?

Here for Immigration or going anywhere for a Visa = must be married to a Thai lady, yet there are many same sex couples that have been together for many many years here and have 0 say and 0 rights.

So a man and a women get a bit of paper signed to say there are partners, called marriage paper, cannot see any problem with 2 men or 2 women getting a partnership paper so they can have equal rights

Does the paper have to say "marriage" or can it be a "civil union" that gives all the same rights as being married? I think there is a good number of people (if not most against) who are against "gay marriage" but have no issue with granting them the same rights. It is about the sanctity of marriage.

And personally this is why I believe marriages should take place on a personal level and the government should only grant civil unions to any consenting adults wishing to enter into a legal contract. Don't most government require consummation (intercourse) for a marriage to be legal? What the hell is that? Government forcing sex on people to receive benefits or recognition???? And how does a homosexual person have intercourse when intercourse requires both a vagina and penis by definition .... forgetting about those with sexual function or organ problems being able to consummate a marriage.

Leave it up to the individuals, groups or churches they belong to define marriage and simply let the government process the paperwork which effectively creates a business partnership.

The purpose of Thai "legislation" that apes Western legislation is not now, never was, and never will be about reforming Thai society. It's about Thais posturing to show themselves and their country to be "modern", "enlightened", and "up to date." It's not like they'd ever actually allow any meaningful or effective implementing regulation to be adopted let alone enforced.

Well then they are doing what it takes by talking about it and not actually acting because as far as I can tell same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in only Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

Agree that is not what is being proposed but if the bisexuals, polygamists or siblings are consenting adults of sound mind then should they not be given the right to marry? I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults. Siblings can adopt children just like a gay couple. Nothing is a perfect example for why gay marriage should be allowed but there are good examples, such as this, that show many people do want to have a line of defining what marriages should be allowed among consenting adults. And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and it should be left up to individuals and/or the groups they choose to belong..

"I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults." so you could argue for the illegalisation of heterosexual marriage - they're "a group"?

Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%.

It is half a leaf and it's called equality for all.

Except the children. What about the children? Do they have a right to be adopted into a "natural" family? If you are straight, what do you think it would have been like to grow up with gay parents?

To be raised in a loving family is all the matters.

What if the home is loving but believes in racial segregation and believes homosexuals will burn in hell? Point is beliefs and life sty;es do matter.

As long as there is qualified hetro couples out there willing to adopt then I say they should be considered first and then less optimal situations such as single parents and homosexuals. And I would be more inclined to have a child go to a single women than a man or men be they hetro or homo.

Here is a link to recent scientific study that is not pro or con gay tha looked at adult kids from homosexual couples (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610) and here are some findings that supposedly come from this research ....

Are much more likely to have received welfare

Have lower educational attainment

Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin

Are more likely to suffer from depression

Have been arrested more often

Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance

Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed

Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

Nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others

Use marijuana more frequently

Smoke more frequently

Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

Much of this will probably change if homosexual lifestyles become more acceptable but given the small percentage of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals and the even smaller number of homosexuals who will marry and have kids it may always be tougher just as it is for kids in single households, which has become fairly common, but that doesn't mean a single parent or gay parents can't raise perfectly adjusted kids.

In years to come if it can be shown there is little difference then fine but this is something earned and not just given because somebody says they are equal. This is about the welfare of kids.

Wonder how he changes his shorts.

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

I rhink you are overlooking one of the main points of "gay-marriage" - and that is if it is seen a equal under the law (i.e. Government involvement) then the partners will be subject to the same responsibilities and befit that marriage incurs...notably property rights ,tax, welfare, and inheritance.

I think you didn't read my post.

" I am simply against the government being involved in marriage" - ??

Keep going now ... there is more than a partial sentence in the post.

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

Agree that is not what is being proposed but if the bisexuals, polygamists or siblings are consenting adults of sound mind then should they not be given the right to marry? I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults. Siblings can adopt children just like a gay couple. Nothing is a perfect example for why gay marriage should be allowed but there are good examples, such as this, that show many people do want to have a line of defining what marriages should be allowed among consenting adults. And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and it should be left up to individuals and/or the groups they choose to belong..

"I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults." so you could argue for the illegalisation of heterosexual marriage - they're "a group"?

I am either not understanding your logic or question and therefore cannot answer. However, I am for all of the above being allowed to marry or any other consulting adults to marry and I believe the government should not be in the business of approving marriages and the government should stick to granting Civil Unions to any adults who wish to form a partnership for benefit reasons and the peoples sex lives in these unions should have nothing to do with it.

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

I rhink you are overlooking one of the main points of "gay-marriage" - and that is if it is seen a equal under the law (i.e. Government involvement) then the partners will be subject to the same responsibilities and befit that marriage incurs...notably property rights ,tax, welfare, and inheritance.

I think you didn't read my post.

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

Agree that is not what is being proposed but if the bisexuals, polygamists or siblings are consenting adults of sound mind then should they not be given the right to marry? I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults. Siblings can adopt children just like a gay couple. Nothing is a perfect example for why gay marriage should be allowed but there are good examples, such as this, that show many people do want to have a line of defining what marriages should be allowed among consenting adults. And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and it should be left up to individuals and/or the groups they choose to belong..

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

IKEA has very annoyingly "solved" this problem. What geniuses, I swear. Deny the customer a free bag, and then claim green all day long. It is seriously genius to be admired.

Why don't others follow suit?

Save money too. The number they quote in the US is that $4 billion is spent annually just in the United States producing plastic bags and believe something like 12 Million Barrels of oil are used..

PB, it is ignorance like yours that magnifies the global problems.

Are all of these ok by your thinking?

Have you heard the saying 'every little bit helps"

Plastic bags are one single problem in a huge problem of garbage in general.

Plastic bags is one thing everybody that cared just a little bit, could do something about today and for the rest of their days. Refuse a bag, you do not need a bag to carry everything home. You do not need 2 bags when they will all fit in one etc.

This is something you can do something about right now. All the other problems also need addressing and they do, this is just one of them.

You do not need a plastic bag to carry your water bottle out of 7/11. You do need the plastic bottle to carry the water out.

If you cannot see that and any advantage of it, then you simply are one of the ignorant millions that are destroying the planet.

I used to work in some pristine environments, more than you would have ever seen. These areas are now being ruined some 15/20 years on because of the 100 fold increase in rubbish and convenient packaging.

I was in one such environment over xmas and the difference was staggering.

Keep your head in the sand if you want and plead ignorance, but good people will not stop caring, unlike yourself and give up. You are just weak no doubt.

This is exactly what I mean. There's always a few photos out there that are RARE OCCURRENCES of events and that are then posted of evidence of a major problem.

How many of such "plastic wrapped birds" has anyone on this forum actually seen? I'm pretty sure it's zero. On the same basis as forbidding plastic bags, you should argue that arrows (the ones shot from bows) should be forbidden because there's a series of photos out there with birds with arrows through their neck. Just google (on Google Images) "bird with plastic bag" and "bird with arrow". The former will yield the photos posted above plus a few more - it's not like there's heaps of photos out there because it hardly ever happens that birds are caught in bags. The latter search will yield about the same number of birds with arrows in them.

The whole argument of reducing plastic bags or banning them remains a load of <deleted> IMHO. It's not about every little bit helps - because they would be replaced with "reusable" woven polyester bags, which are much heavier and need a lot more energy to produce, and are also wasted albeit after a few more uses. So it would just be shifting the burden another way, until some little old lady in Hampshire finds one of these "reusable" bags in her chicken coop and starts the next round of "let's ban these too". All replacement bags, whether woven polyester, or paper, or cotton etc. require much more energy to produce and similar levels of wastage occur during production and often disposal.

The problem with plastic bags is that they are made of an artificial material and thus people make a big fuss because artificial materials should be avoided at all cost, and if a bit of it ends up in the environment it is a major issue.

The argument about the pristine environments - yes there are areas (in the central Pacific for one) which see a lot of trash wash up on the beaches because they are in a vortex area of ocean currents. There will be a few plastic bags among the trash, but the far majority of it consists of harder and more durable plastics such as pallet covers, polyester chips, PET bottles, etc. This is not a reason to argue that plastic bags are evil. The problem is that all kinds of trash are washed out to sea in rivers, and thrown from ships. Plastic shopping bags are just a very small part of them.

I've asked for concrete examples etc. but nobody gives them. Only reproductions of standard "sample" pictures showcasing the supposed evil of plastic bags. Nobody has come up with anything convincing IMHO.

Many people want to be mainstream and politically correct, and thus follow the prevailing opinion without questioning it (simply because a few pictures exist of birds wrapped in plastic, does not mean there is a global issue with plastic shopping bags - there may be a problem with trash in general but that is a very different issue that is conveniently being bundled into the shopping bag argument it seems).

Many others don't agree but keep silent because they are fearful of opposing the mainstream opinion, which in this case is that plastic bags are evil but nobody really knows why - unless you're basing an opinion on a few pictures and don't care about what is reasonable, or any hard facts or stats.

I repeat: show me the actual facts how PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS are destroying the environment (and I don't buy a few sensationalist pictures or movies as being proof of that). Waste in general may have a major impact on the environment globally, but PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS are INERT LIKE GLASS and don't leak chemicals or similar. Some marine animals may eat a few and of course that upsets some people, but I haven't seen any proof that PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS threaten populations of animals anywhere in the world, or actually pollute the environment in a serious way (apart from annoying a few little old ladies in Hampshire when they blow across their lawn).

My argument remains: there's nothing wrong with plastic shopping bags.

That's not to say there's nothing wrong with global waste. There are serious problems in some areas caused by waste. This is usually caused by leakage of chemicals, petroleum products, medical waste products, radioactivity and similar from areas where waste is dumped. This is a serious issue. But don't confuse that with the issue of plastic shopping bags - because that really is not an issue.

If you still believe plastic bags are a problem, invent a solution. Don't just sit there and try to reduce usage which is non-constructive. Its the same as saying petroleum products cause global warming so let's drive less. <deleted>. Invent a solution that replaces the original "evil" solution with something that does the same, but without the evil aspect.

Have a great day! I'm off to the supermarket

Rare photos?!? Not rare at all, but the news agencies don't want to report about it every day or even every week. So a lot of short sited, uninformed, twits that believe god exists think everything is great because they can't see garbage in their area. In fact plastic is killing several hundred thousand animals a year. And it effects millions more, but hey keep your head in the sand and you won't see it so hey there isn't a problem.

If someone sees an animal with a plastic bag on its head or similar, they will take a photo of it. You may be old fashioned and carry no camera, but almost everyone else does and thus they WILL take a photo because it is a sensational thing to see an animal covered in plastic. And they will UPLOAD the photo, because that's what happens. And google will INDEX the photo as part of its image index. So almost all photos that exist are out there online. And what that means is that animals with plastic bags on them are rare. It's a simple statistical truth that everyone can see. You may want to get a better grip on the realities of the internet

Even if plastic kills "several hundred thousand animals a year" (wild guess/speculation? It may very well be true but what source do you have?) that's hardly relevant on a global scale. Millions more are killed in other ways. Plus if you had read my posts before, my argument is essentially that reducing plastic bag usage won't make a difference. Because there will still be billions of plastic bags in circulation. And many other types of plastics create much bigger problems, and that's not even talking about much more severe pollutants. So what I'm saying is that it's a feel good thing that makes no difference.

Not sure where you get the religious angle from, far as I remember nobody talked about anything religious on this thread.

However I'm getting fed up with repeating the same stuff every time, and there's a bunch of people on here who remain focused on the small things that make them feel good but make no difference in the real world. I've made my point, and am signing off from this thread because there's nothing more to say about the subject.

If it makes you happy and gives you a sense of purpose to reduce your plastic bag usage by a 100-odd bags a year, and think that is a great initiative that will save the world from death by plastic, go right ahead and dream on

Your logic dictates that no effort should be made to improve anything because unless it actually cures the problem or at least significantly there is no sense in making an effort. Reducing the number of plastic bags people use and therefor that are produced is a good thing for the environment. Will it cure aids, stop all wars, make the air perfect and stop all pollution? Of course not but to try in anyway to say it is not a good thing that people reduce their use of plastic bags makes no sense. You may have a point that the effects will not be as great as some may think but you have gone way overboard in trying to communicate this to the point of making yourself seem less credible ... and I do believe you have a point but the bottom line is you cannot argue with the fact people cutting down on plastic bag use is a good thing for the environment. .