lanna2011

wrong again - it's against the law in most developed country's to employ a women based on gender discrimination - you just show what a hypocrite you really are

edit: to include a smug and a condesending that you so love to use

I can only assume that not only have you never worked in HR, that you have also never been the person to do the hiring. It is totally legal to hire the right person for the position in light of the current make-up of a team etc ----

Hiring on an inclusory basis (an affirmative action plan) for balance in the workplace is acceptable practice. "We need a woman's viewpoint on the team" is fine .... in almost all workplace decisions.

One of the most common things I do when I take over the management of an existing company is create a more diverse work place ....

BTW -- I do notice that you have now changed you goalpost from "in most places" to "in most developed country's (sic)", but that still wouldn't be true. A company policy to exclude people based upon certain criteria (that policy being de facto or written) would be illegal in many places in most developed nations (not all and certainly not in most of the world ) ... a decision to favor someone based upon diversity goals or the need for balance is entirely legal. (again in most places)

Still a fun little game and you still lose

edit --- BTW in much of the developed world it is acceptable to even suggest a preference if you do it correctly. It would be acceptable to include something like ....

"JDCO is an equal opportunity employer which is actively striving for a diverse workforce and actively recruits women and minorities" as part of an advertisement

2nd edit

Politics

Bosses can lawfully hire a woman over a man with same qualifications for first time

Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said.

http://www.telegraph...first-time.html

indeed I have - at a very senior position and you are wrong:

It is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their gender. Employers should ensure they have policies in place which are designed to prevent discrimination in:

• recruitment and selection
• determining pay
• training and development
• selection for promotion
• discipline and grievances
• countering bullying and harassment.

source: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1814

I've said earlier in the other thread (which I don't know where now)

The Think Park land has been sold to a new owner. The former owner was the guy who owned Oishi group a few years back, owned it for a while then realized that the local law in Chiang Mai doesn't allow him to build tall buildings there. From my information, the area will be converted into an "entertainment complex" which I assume it's going to be a cinema.

BUT the current Amari Rincome hotel based on my information will also be converted to a small boutique "upscale" shopping complex with cinema. The investor here is Siam Future group which owns SF Cinema and Future Park Rangsit. Will be very interesting to see what's coming.

Just imagine the traffic congestion.

Oh and Nimmanhaemin road will be widen up to 2 meters on both sides up to the entrance to Nimmanhaemin Soi 1. (Which won't help at all)

parking? sounds a nightmare

is it pollen? an infection? a mystic sign of the outcome of the election?tons of yellow powder on my trees

Your last 'note' is dscriminatory and would be against the law in most places - and is considered 'unequal' in most developed country's - so a pro-discrimination policy in your company is anti-discriminatory to others - based on gender or whatever - so you're not exactly practicing what you preach

Nope ... it isn't In "most places" it is totally legal. It is also totally legal in the US etc. If my team needs a woman for balance it is 100% acceptable for me to have in place an affirmative action plan for that position in "most places" including the US the UK and Oz ... It would not be legal for me to state that ONLY women could apply (it is of course totally legal in Thailand --- which is where I am --- for me to state my preferences for a position in print.) There are a few companies which have had discriminatory hiring policies that must abide by some stronger rules in some places, but since I hire based upon need (my company's need) and ability of the applicant in that order I would be safe anywhere

Thanks for playing such a fun little game -- but you lose

wrong again - it's against the law in most developed country's to employ a women based on gender discrimination - you just show what a hypocrite you really are

edit: to include a smug and a condesending that you so love to use

Yongyuth said he was not ready to take the post in place of Yingluck and stressed he would definitely not accept it.

Just like he doesn't want to be leader of the party.

maybe he hasn't had permission from he who must be obeyed.........?

broken record again?

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple.

This is pretty much what I feel also. Give gays all the same rights, but do not call it marriage.

Again -- the label doesn't matter to me ---- but do you really think "separate but equal" is in any way, shape, or form, Equal?

I do agree that churches should not be forced to perform services that they think are incompatible with their beliefs ....

Nisa's other remarks smack of a bit of prejudice in my mind ---- but I guess if Nisa thinks it is also acceptable to not hire blacks because customers might be uncomfortable with it .....

(note- as a business person I hire who I want, based upon what is good for my business --- but I would never have an exclusionary policy of any kind ---- just a policy of who I do include (appropriate dress, behavior, etc --- I would even add gender in there for some jobs but only rarely and usually only to balance a situation )

Your last 'note' is dscriminatory and would be against the law in most places - and is considered 'unequal' in most developed country's - so a pro-discrimination policy in your company is anti-discriminatory to others - based on gender or whatever - so you're not exactly practicing what you preach

So yes, it is entirely possible to be in favor of equal rights and against same sex marriage. It is a view anchored in the notions of free will and compassion, and it confers dignity to all, including homosexuals.

Agree 100%

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple. I also have no real conviction against or for them marrying but absolutely support any religion who refuses to perform such a ceremony and accept their rights to no recognize such a marriage under the laws of God but do believe they need to recognize it in terms of state laws.

Believing in equal rights properly is not a matter of accepting another person's beliefs or expressions when you agree with them. Anybody can do that. It is a matter of respecting others when you disagree with their expressions, choices or differences. Above all we need to respect the laws of the States or seek legal means of change.

I am also all for people changing themselves to be a "3rd sex" but also support the rights of a company not to hire this person in a position they believe would make their clients uncomfortable. The same is true for an outwardly open Gay or an outwardly open hetrosexual who feels the need to let everyone know their sexual preferences.

well put - my thoughts exactly but I have received abuse for them - welcome to TV I guess! thanks for sharing a balanced viewpoint much better put than my feeble attempt

1. Definition

“Alien” means a naturalperson who is not of Thai nationality; “ Work ”means to engage in work by

exerting energy or usingknowledge whether or not in consideration of wages or other benefits.

This is the law - includes volunteer and online 'work' - and Tourist Police - did you read that? and Citylife could be fined 100,000 per musician for helping Japan? it's madness

There are always caveats - for people with disabilities (for instance - say downs syndrome) or people of particular religious faiths. Now you may argue they should have equal rights too - you probably will argue that but it doesn't hold true. What about the equal right of us all to have food? enough money? why should there be rich and poor? aren't we all equal? what about minors? children? should they have equal rights? and terrorists too? what about animal rights? or as the other poster said my right to marry Fido?

as said --- you are NOT for equal rights and do accept discrimination. The other smokescreens are a nice new addition ... but since you already got beat down on logic, and religion .... now you resort to this? (BTW --- are people with Down's Syndrome not allowed to marry?)

Either you are for equal rights or you aren't ... you have stated that you are not with "all but"

I see you skipped replying to earthpig and we will have to agree to disagree

He even goes so far as to mention the tourist police in Chiang Mai, who employ foreign 'volunteers' who are technically working without official work permits, "please tell them that that is illegal! They need to come and report to me.

Hum 'please tell them'?

Good article as you say but it really is a case of 'Amazing Thailand'

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

So ... in other words you are not for equal rights ... and thus are for discrimination. Equal = Equal ... not "all but"

equality simply doesn't need any caveats

There are always caveats - for people with disabilities (for instance - say downs syndrome) or people of particular religious faiths. Now you may argue they should have equal rights too - you probably will argue that but it doesn't hold true. What about the equal right of us all to have food? enough money? why should there be rich and poor? aren't we all equal? what about minors? children? should they have equal rights? and terrorists too? what about animal rights? or as the other poster said my right to marry Fido?

I have changed mice (a brand new cable free doesn't work at all). Updated drivers, changed the USB port but it still goes 'in and out'

I have a fairly new i7 Dell laptop

it just makes that 'dung dung' noise as it clicks on and off

I have deleted and reinstalled - to no avail

I have windows 7 - any other ideas?

thanks for the laugh.

this is the same guy who was responsible for the deaths of 90+ people last year eh ?

Stop bringing Thaksin into every thread.

Who brought Thaksin to the thread?

Since he is the guy who is responsible for the deaths of 90+ people last year, the poster I was replying to did.

no he didn't - read again

Most BJT supporters also lean towards PT. Most dislike DEMs.

last election most of their voters voted for BJT because they expected Newin to stick with Thaksin.

BJT is paniking. im sure they will lose a lot of votes to PT this election

yes i think there is truth in this as evidenced by the recent BJT asking some of its members at the rally - they prefer PT - not very scientific I know but... anyway they are ALL fickle and we simply won't know until it's 'time'

Did it happen at all?

BTW -- Bung claims that the recent BJT remark indicates that they are leaning towards PTP .. I suggest he go back to the remarks where BJT said its ONLY goal was to be in the government and not the opposition and that they would form a coalition with the dems or ptp to meet that goal.

Feel free to go back over the past few years of posts in the political forums, I don't think you will find anyone that states that Newin is anything other than an opportunist. People will also say "if you want to know what is going to happen, watch Newin." The man is a scoundrel but he is one of the top players on the political field in Thailand.

well we can agree on that - yes Newin is an opportunist of the highest degree - but Suthep tops my list of 'scoundrels' and he's DPM!

read 120 and learn you are a master of twist and turn, smoke and mirrors - I am for equal rights and against discrimination - I was arguing my non-support for gay marriage but you try and turn it into something else entirely - I am not anti-gay nor have I stated I am

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

Fine! Just don't say you are pro equal rights. You ain't by definition. Yes, that makes you an object of derision, and justifiably so, just like modern people deride people opposing equal rights for other groups in the past. You are no different but you just don't know it yet. It is still socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for gays, but not forever.

this is homosexual apologetics from Thaivisa's resident master of the art. it is not only in some circles socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, it is quite logical to do so. and in so doing one does not demean homosexuals, but rather dignifies them and everyone else.

granting rights to people of colour [as argued further above] and granting them to homosexuals are not logically analogous. we cannot change our race; we can change our behaviour. surely a blue man should have the same rights as a green one for, among other reasons, his color is not his doing. but does a man whose behaviour has brought him to prison deserve the same rights as a free man?

the point is that what we do with our free will can be fundamental in any discussion of our rights.

As an atheist, i will admit to a certain mischevious pleasure in quoting the former Joe Ratzinger (in his brilliantly argued Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons).

"It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

... In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."

His argument, you will note, is not based on overt religious grounds, but on humanistic ones. The homosexual is not a victim; rather he like all of us the owner of a free will, and is thus responsible for his actions. To argue otherwise is to demean him (and everyone else.)

Turning to psychology, we know from peer reviewed, scientific studies that homosexuals suffer 3-4 times the general population's rate of suicide, depression, neurosis and psychosis. And unlike what the homosexual apologists will always claim as the cause of this disquiet--discrimination--in fact other peer reviewed, professional studies reveal the source of the homosexual's disquiet to be rampant infidelity and consequent lonliness in this community. Based on this professional evidence, Ratzinger is not wrong in referring to homosexuality as a "moral disorder."

Thus homosexuality is not the sort of thing the mother of a new borne wishes for her child. Rather, it may too frequently lead to a deplorably sad life; surely not one deserving of scorn much less violence, but certainly one deserving of pity. And anything-like same sex marriage--that encourages and legitimizes this behaviour ought not to be encouraged. Whatever the arguments on this matter may be that influence religious persons, certainly the rest of us should be against encouraging homosexuality on grounds of compassion. (Anyone who doubts this need only visit Pattaya to witness its large aging population of melancholy falang homosexuals.)

So yes, it is entirely possible to be in favor of equal rights and against same sex marriage. It is a view anchored in the notions of free will and compassion, and it confers dignity to all, including homosexuals.

agree 100% - much better put than my feeble effort - but resident 'know it all's' won't accept any of it - cause they know everything

for someone who only joined seven days ago, i think you have got ''the know it all '' part down already

probably had to join a forum to get someone to talk to you........

maybe haha

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

No where have I ever stated I was against gays or what they may do in private - it is their business and their karma entirely. I have reservations about 'marriage' only.

And I don't see a statement accusing you of anything so maybe we are in agreement? I was expressing my point of view with my experience in a tradition that has been brought into the thread.

I did make accusations that 'some' people pass off their own ideas as being the beliefs of other, sometimes more credibly viewed people. For that I apologise if it caused offence.

It is for me to apologize to you - I was not referring to your post but just making a general statement which I should not have attached to your post

"Certainly, behind the policy to have eggs sold by the kilogram is a lack of understanding. Naturally, eggs are fragile and thus they should not be sold by the kilo," she said, attacking the arch-rival Democrat Party.

Take that Democrats.

What does "fragile" have to do with "not be sold by the kilo"?

highlighting the fact that she probably has not bought eggs by kilo or box in many years

her servants will do the shopping

her current campaigning will see her be as close to the serfs as she has ever been

i can imagine her in private, running to the shower to get the stench of the common man off her as quickly as possible........

oh dear, oh dear what a character assassination of a political party leader without a shred of evidence only the 'sins of the brother' - she has the momentum

BJT party comes across as a mercenary party.

The way they flipped back and forth with their alliances while skimming off as much cream as they could get away with.

not sure that ALL their voters will feel comfortable with this, doubt that all will.

newin is nervous, yingluck fever is gaining momentum, and abhisit is looking much the same as before: a tired, worn out, used and impotent little puppet.

observant and true

Hope everyone honors it - even the 'experts' here

Most BJT supporters also lean towards PT. Most dislike DEMs.

last election most of their voters voted for BJT because they expected Newin to stick with Thaksin.

BJT is paniking. im sure they will lose a lot of votes to PT this election

yes i think there is truth in this as evidenced by the recent BJT asking some of its members at the rally - they prefer PT - not very scientific I know but... anyway they are ALL fickle and we simply won't know until it's 'time'

Fine! Just don't say you are pro equal rights. You ain't by definition. Yes, that makes you an object of derision, and justifiably so, just like modern people deride people opposing equal rights for other groups in the past. You are no different but you just don't know it yet. It is still socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for gays, but not forever.

this is homosexual apologetics from Thaivisa's resident master of the art. it is not only in some circles socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, it is quite logical to do so. and in so doing one does not demean homosexuals, but rather dignifies them and everyone else.

granting rights to people of colour [as argued further above] and granting them to homosexuals are not logically analogous. we cannot change our race; we can change our behaviour. surely a blue man should have the same rights as a green one for, among other reasons, his color is not his doing. but does a man whose behaviour has brought him to prison deserve the same rights as a free man?

the point is that what we do with our free will can be fundamental in any discussion of our rights.

As an atheist, i will admit to a certain mischevious pleasure in quoting the former Joe Ratzinger (in his brilliantly argued Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons).

"It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

... In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."

His argument, you will note, is not based on overt religious grounds, but on humanistic ones. The homosexual is not a victim; rather he like all of us the owner of a free will, and is thus responsible for his actions. To argue otherwise is to demean him (and everyone else.)

Turning to psychology, we know from peer reviewed, scientific studies that homosexuals suffer 3-4 times the general population's rate of suicide, depression, neurosis and psychosis. And unlike what the homosexual apologists will always claim as the cause of this disquiet--discrimination--in fact other peer reviewed, professional studies reveal the source of the homosexual's disquiet to be rampant infidelity and consequent lonliness in this community. Based on this professional evidence, Ratzinger is not wrong in referring to homosexuality as a "moral disorder."

Thus homosexuality is not the sort of thing the mother of a new borne wishes for her child. Rather, it may too frequently lead to a deplorably sad life; surely not one deserving of scorn much less violence, but certainly one deserving of pity. And anything-like same sex marriage--that encourages and legitimizes this behaviour ought not to be encouraged. Whatever the arguments on this matter may be that influence religious persons, certainly the rest of us should be against encouraging homosexuality on grounds of compassion. (Anyone who doubts this need only visit Pattaya to witness its large aging population of melancholy falang homosexuals.)

So yes, it is entirely possible to be in favor of equal rights and against same sex marriage. It is a view anchored in the notions of free will and compassion, and it confers dignity to all, including homosexuals.

agree 100% - much better put than my feeble effort - but resident 'know it all's' won't accept any of it - cause they know everything

I have the greatest respect for HH and believe he is a great leader and spiritual mentor - I have heard him personally and read many of his books and we are honoured to walk this earth with such a great man. I do not conclude from my studies the same result as you - but then I am not gay and so I believe I see it without bias. In its truest sense (from whatever path) Buddhism is against promiscous sex and is in favour of control, detachment and balance - something your reply lacked

edit: added smile

"promiscuous sex"? I agree, promiscuous sex is "sexual misconduct" and I also agree with HH that "sexual misconduct" = "sexual misconduct" LOL http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4461755

You fail to address what HH said directly when asked in the OUT magazine interview. Again the topic isn't Buddhism -- that is just a smokescreen being thrown up to mask bigotry. My reply quite simply addressed what was said. That you do not address any single issue that was raised (by you) and put down by simple argument (by me) is quite telling. That the Dharma does not define "sexual misconduct" is clear. That HH when asked about a gay couple directly ---- gave a clear answer. That on the issue of homosexuality he stated he wasn't the foremost authority and that the Sangha would decide as more was revealed to individuals..... That HH represents a rather small percentage of Buddhists in the world (1/6th the number that practice the Buddhism commonly practiced in Thailand, and less than the number of Thai adherents to Buddhism) is something you also ignored ... but then again, you have an agenda. The change in your arguments clearly show the agenda you have, which is certainly not one of control (unless you mean control of others), detachment, or 'balance"

read 120 and learn you are a master of twist and turn, smoke and mirrors - I am for equal rights and against discrimination - I was arguing my non-support for gay marriage but you try and turn it into something else entirely - I am not anti-gay nor have I stated I am

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

No where have I ever stated I was against gays or what they may do in private - it is their business and their karma entirely. I have reservations about 'marriage' only.

indeed HH did say that - and sexual intercourse is intended for procreation - and I am well aware of the differing schools of Buddhism - HH is the most respected and widely revered Buddhist in the world I'd say.

And you'd be wrong, I'd say ... he is however the most singularly well known. I can only assume that you noted he was for equal rights and that he did not as you suggest say that homosexuality is wrong by its nature and that his suggestion that homosexuality is not wrong under the situation he was asked about and replied to in the OUT magazine article He said that any sex not intended for procreation is, in the Tibetan tradition, considered 'sexual misconduct' and that would include so many things that it would make it even a more of an intrusion into human rights (across the board --- including birth control for heterosexuals --- etc etc etc) .... The great thing about Buddhism is that not only do HH's ideas not have to be followed, he suggests that (as does the Dharma) the path to enlightenment is individual

More on the topic of Buddhism --- even though it was just thrown into the argument as a smoke-screen for bigotry ---- http://www.shangrala...st%20Sects.html It is worth note that Tibetan Buddhism is actually Lamaism --- and that across the world the number of adherents break down like this ---- Mahayana 185 million adherents, Theraveda 124 million, and Lamaism (Tibetan) only 20 million. source http://www.adherents...s.html#Buddhism

Being well known in and of itself amounts to nothing

It is in Tibet that Buddhism has achieved its greatest triumph One out of every five Tibetan men dedicates himself to the monastic life. But Tibetan Buddhism is based on an offshoot of Mahayana that emphasizes the supernatural and sacred rites directed toward pure magic To this the Tibetans have added their own magic rites and sorcery, their own religion, Bon.

source http://www.shangrala...st%20Sects.html

Your stance on the topic has changed radically throughout this thread and the other thread ... from asking about the logic (and having said logic clearly explained to you) ... to bringing in religion and Thailand (and having that issue soundly defeated)... to saying you are for equal rights but calling gay marriage a "sham" which is self-contradictory

I have the greatest respect for HH and believe he is a great leader and spiritual mentor - I have heard him personally and read many of his books and we are honoured to walk this earth with such a great man. I do not conclude from my studies the same result as you - but then I am not gay and so I believe I see it without bias. In its truest sense (from whatever path) Buddhism is against promiscous sex and is in favour of control, detachment and balance - something your reply lacked

edit: added smile