johnnybangkok

Firstly this should never have gone to a referendum. To allow ill-informed individuals to vote on such a complicated matter was always going to be a mistake. With very little economic reasons to leave it was always going to come down to emotion and the scare mongering of the Leave campaign meant that Bridget and Geoff in Sunderland thought the UK was going to be overrun by immigrants and voted accordingly. Cameron has royally <deleted!> this up and has rightly resigned. His fear of Nigel Farage and the racists in his own party forced the UK into this and now the whole of the UK is paying the price for his conceit. Also expect the Scottish nationalist to insist on another referendum as Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay and will now insist on independence. And I hope this time they get it.
It’s done now and as usual life will go on but why this even got to this stage will be questioned for generations to come and the consequences felt throughout the whole of the UK for many, many years.

I am absolutely gutted about this decision to leave.
Firstly this should never have gone to a referendum. To allow ill-informed individuals to vote on such a complicated matter was always going to be a mistake. With very little economic reasons to leave it was always going to come down to emotion and the scare mongering of the Leave campaign meant that Bridget and Geoff in Sunderland thought the UK was going to be overrun by immigrants and voted accordingly. Cameron has royally &lt;deleted&gt; this up and must now resign. His fear of Nigel Farage and the racists in his own party forced the UK into this and now everyone will pay the price for his conceit. Also expect the Scottish nationalist to insist on another referendum as Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay and will now insist on independence. And being Scottish myself, I hope this time they get it.
It’s done now and as usual life will go on but why this even got to this stage will be questioned for generations to come and the consequences felt throughout the whole of the UK for many, many years.

Yet again the usual mix of ill informed, prejudiced and 'holier than thou' attitudes permeate throughout this thread. Here are the facts:

The vast majority of homeless people have mental health issues. A recent survey in the UK shows that some 80% of homeless people reported some form of mental health issues with 45% actually being diagnosed with serious problems (http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/our-research/homelessness-and-health-research). Granted this is just the UK but it is widely acknowledged that these sort of figures permeate throughout the world so I can't see how this will differ greatly in Thailand.

Saying this, I have lived in Bangkok for 6 years now and have never seen a homeless farang. If I did though, my first thought would not be 'now there's a man who spunked all his money on 20 year old bimbos and now has to riffle through bins to make ends meet". I'd be thinking he has problems; serious problems and if I knew him then I would be trying to guide him towards help rather than chastise him for what may not be his fault.

As the original poster asks, why don't these people go home? The answer is, it may not be as simple as that.

Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should.

As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational.

Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love.

But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption.

What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir.

If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic.

But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings".

For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do.

The thread is about exploitation of a womb in a poor country by westerners, not surrogacy per se or suitability of homosexual parents.

Nice try at sidetracking though.

As CLEARLY stated in my post "If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out",

It's the anti gay bias I am referring to Sherlock.

Seems to me many Homosexuals are not content to live quietly , they jump about the Streets acting like Pro Cycle Activists and Religious Nutters pissing Folks off the majority of quiet folk regardless of their cause. Dont they realize many of their persuasion dont like them ether. I never dissliked or noticed them till some Lefty Nurd told Me i Should.

As I understand it, the reason they march in streets dressed as rainbows, waving placards and being very noticeable, is a response to centuries of homophobic violence and slayings, of being persecuted so much that they sometimes chose suicide to escape. Many of the rainbow crowd have themselves been physically harmed in homophobic attacks. The whole 'in your face' thing is a response to this long history of homophobic violence and murder, and being forced to hide in the shadows for safety. On one level the very public LGBT stuff is like saying "look, here I am, walking around in public in daylight and dressed in bright colours, surrounded by likeminded people, not ashamed and not afraid." I think it is outstanding, and inspirational.

Similarly, the social media is full of messages of support for LGBT people, for the same reason, it is recognition that these people have endured violent persecution for a long time, and suffered so much just because they fall in love.

But obviously, just being LGBT doesn't make you a good parent, everyone has to be screened and evaluated on their individual suitability. As I said in the start of this thread, I would have danced for joy if I'd been adopted by anyone nice who looked after me, regardless of LGBT etc. I don't really see how that would be different for surrogacy, but then you have all the potential problems relating to surrogacy, which I think a person should avoid and go straight for adoption.

What a well thought out and well written summary of the key to this issue for many on this thread. I salute you sir.

If you study the thread from the beginning you will see that although this article was primarily about surrogacy, the inevitable anti-gay bias came out, often from individuals who I guarantee never thought they were bigoted or meant to infer prejudice but through their statements clearly showed they were. I don't really blame them as it's just inherent in many (mostly of a certain age, upbringing or religion). The legitimacy of surrogacy was soon hijacked by the "it shouldn't be allowed for them" or 'as long as I don't see it' anti-gay brigade who although when hit time and time again with peer reviewed, scientific studies proving that the sexual orientation of the parents makes absolutely no impact on a child's well-being (it's all about the love, support and nurturing duh) still cling to their dinosaur belief that somehow LGBT people are not the same as you and me and therefore should be treated differently. This was the exact same sentiment and argument used against women when, heaven forbid, they wanted the vote and for blacks in the Civil Rights movement. As another thread so eloquently put it here, just substitute gay/homosexual with the word 'people' and just see how ridiculous your statements are and why you should rightly be branded bigot or downright homophobic.

But confrontation rarely achieves change so hopefully these 16 pages or so of insight and thought have enlightened some of you to how science is continually proving your miss-informed and antiquated views wrong and how society is moving so quickly that it is no longer going to passively sit by whilst you spread your message of suspicion, hate and downright lies. Please also understand, no one is attacking your very real right to have an opinion, we would just prefer it to be slightly better informed and backed up by something more scientific than your 'feelings".

For many, their self inflicted myopia will continue to dictate their views and nothing will change for them but for some perhaps the mountain of evidence provided by many on this thread will at least questions their (probably) long held views on the subject and hopefully start to open their mind a little bit. The world is quickly coming round to what many of us have known to be true for many years; and that is the LGBT community is actually people, who only want the same rights and even playing field that you and I have enjoyed for many, many years. I for one hope they get it across the world very soon and I'm also happy that they scream, shout and jump about the streets until they do.

I don't think I am prejudiced or homophobic, and have a few gay friends whose company I enjoy and have the utmost respect for. They are not my "gay" friends, they are simply my friends. I don't call my straight friends my "straight" friends, there is no discrimination.

However, when it comes to children, I somehow struggle to accept the thought of same gender "parents". Since time began, parents means mother and father, maternal and paternal, female and male. I can not in any way accept that this should change. My philosophy is that should you be gay, decide to live a gay life whether partnered or married, then you sacrifice the right to adopt, surrogate or raise children period.

So, gay people be delighted that you are more accepted in society nowadays, you can be partnered mostly without harassment, and can marry in some parts of the world. This I can salute and consider positive progress. But please, PLEASE, leave the children out of it.

"I don't think I am prejudiced or homophobic.......however". You may not be homophobic but you certainly are prejudiced as you cannot say that I'm fine with gays as long as they don't have the same right to become parents as straight people. This is the exact meaning of prejudice.

I know you mean well (as do many people on this post) but you cannot say you are fine with gays whilst secretly holding these types of views. As mentioned in many of the comments here, there is scientific and peer reviewed studies that clearly say that the sexual orientation of the parents has no standing on the child and that all that matters is that they are raised in a loving, caring and nurturing environment.

Take the time to do some studying on the subject and better still, have a good chat with the few gay friends you have and get their side of the story. You should perhaps be concerned that if you do voice your opinion they will see you for the prejudiced individual that you really are and you may lose some of them, but if they are truly good friends hopefully they will open your eyes to the fact it doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the parent; it's all about the love they can give.

This is good stuff '

There are more than enough unfortunate children waiting in orphanages all over the world to get the chance of finding loving foster parents. Take one of them as your child!!!

At some point kids want to know their true biological parents, so what they gonna tell those surrogate kids? Something like this? "It was a business you know - your biological mom carried you out just to make some extra cash but did not have any bond with you, letting alone love you? By the way, we have no idea who she was, where she lives and are also not allowed to check up on that... Oh, before I forgot - I am not your real dad, neither is Joe, your other dad... Your bio dad was a anonymous donor, I'm sorry!"

This is important and the response seems to be ' don't worry, it'll be ok'..... so blasé with predicting a kids feelings in the future.

Gays need to accept, 1) their union doesn't allow for the production of natural offspring

2) When it comes to kid raising, we don't know if there any negative outcomes to two blokes or two girls raising a kid, maybe being romantic in front of the kid, bullying at schools etc.

3)Purchasing children IS NOT THE <deleted> CORRECT ANSWER

All you poor bewildered creatures who want gays to adopt cannot get past your sexist natures to understand that the same applies to straight people. Why do you not tell them to stop procreating and adopt also????

You are all completely ignorant of the calling of nature, to follow what our genes demand, that is to have children. Many gay people use their own sperm to use with a surrogate mother.

I know a lesbian couple who, 26 years ago, used a gay friends sperm who wa..ed in the next room and then used a turkey baster to deliver it. The child born from that is now a straight well adjusted young man, a real hit with the girls, is well aware of his origins and would not have it any other way. He says that if they went to so much effort to have him then he knows he is really wanted and loved by his 2 mothers.

There has been quite a bit of research done already on the children raised by gay and lesbian couples that shows they do not suffer any detrimental effects any more than kids from straight unions. GET OVER YOUR FEAR OF THE TRUTH AND DO SOME SERIOUS READING ABOUT THE SUBJECT. Don't go looking in Catholic or Southern Baptist type websites. Look for scientific research.

And finally - grow up and get a life and get over all your prejudices.

At last a voice of reason!

People need to get over who the parents are and concentrate on how they parent. There are numerous examples and scientifically based research that has shown that children of gay couples are just as well adjusted as children from heterosexual couples. Surprise, surprise its all about how they are brought up.

The poor child, he/she will loose whichever way it goes. If the child stay here its doomed into poverty. If the child becomes the child of a gay couple, the child will have to survive all the negatives in school of having same sex parents. Its very interesting that there is no long term study ever done on the effects of children growing up in a same sex home. So scientificaly I cant say it will be negative and neither can same sex couples say it will be positive or neutral. But from living live I know what abuse these children will endure at school. Unfortunately governments only love science when it suites them, in this case I believe that governments have approved child adoption by same sex partners without doing the research needed to determine the long term effects on children. Hereby I am not saying the same sex parents will be at fault, but I believe society views could harm these children. The need of the adults to have children can never override the well being of the child.

With respect, can't you see that it's old fashioned and outdated attitudes like yours that are leading 'societies views".? I'm sure you are well intentioned and truly believe that you have the child's welfare at heart but the chain of discrimination has to be broken at some stage so rather than perpetuate the negative, why don't you try encouraging the positives?

It wasn't so long ago that it was firmly believed that black and white children shouldn't mix because it 'wasn't fair on the kids'. Thankfully time has shown that not to be the case but it took some brave people to stand up to 'the norm' and say that attitudes had to change. I see the debate about gay marriage and gay people having children as being equal to the Civil Rights movement predominately in the US but also in Europe and that in 20 years no one will think twice about LGBT community having equal rights to marriage, adoption etc that the rest of us have enjoyed all of our lives. And by the way, children are a lot more resilient (and open minded) than you give them credit for and will readily accept a 'different' parental set up IF they are not unduly influenced by backward thinking parents.

I find all of this fascinating in as much as it shows just how big a generational gap there is with some of the posters here. And I say generational as even though I am 47 year old, much of my generation and the younger generation are not thinking your outdated, badly researched and frankly absurd suppositions.

You may think you are not homophobic with your "you mind your business and as long as it doesn't effect me, I'll mind my business" attitude but when it actually comes down to it, you don't see homosexual men (or women) as the same as you. When every single bit of evidence points to the fact that gay people are born gay with very little choice on the matter (as one OP observed, why put yourself through all of that abuse and victimization if you could choose to be straight) and that they are more than capable of bringing up a child in a loving and nurturing environment (Modern Family anyone?) and are often better than it than many heterosexual couples, you still feel that the 'traditional' home is the only thing that can work. Would this be the traditional home that produces all the orphans you are discussing here? Is this the traditional home that tops the list of child abuse and child negligence? Is this the traditional home with divorce rates of some 50% quoted for the likes of the US?

I also take offence to the "you chose to be gay so that means you can't have kids" or "why can't you take an orphan instead of going surrogate?" You would never pose these frankly absurd questions to a heterosexual couple yet it seems perfectly fine to you to do so with gay couples. All people have choice and if their preference is surrogacy then who are you to say otherwise?

Your opinions are outdated, your standpoint misguided and the facts you present are neither logical nor particularly well researched. The only saving grace is like the dinosaurs you so aptly mimic, hopefully you and your homophobia will soon be extinct.

yes that is well proofed in discussions: if you read something you don't like call the other homophobic, racist or communist. That always works if there is no other good argument.

Surrogate: It should be banned the same for rich straight couples where she just don't want to walk around with a big belly.

Gay couples the child is only the child of one of them, not their child. Mixing a child out of the brochure of eggs and sperm and find someone with good blood values to carry it, no matter if gay or straight couple or single person seems complete wrong to me. A child isn't a product you order out of the catalog in a third world country.

As well the issue that rich can do what they want while the poor must make their babies themself.

Yet another argument with gaping holes in it so lets clear up a few points:

1. If you don't like gays or their lifestyle choice you are definitely homophobic; if you don't like black/Asian/Hispanic etc, you are racist, if you don't want capitalism and think China is doing a great job you are communists (not sure how this crept in, but you started it) - As my dear mother always said, "if the cap fits, then wear it!"

2. People want their own babies and often the eggs/sperm are fine but the woman has what is called an inhospitable womb. Hence surrogates. In the vast majority of cases one or either of the partners have contributed to the pregnancy and the surrogate is simply more able to bring the child to full term.

3. What about adopted kids where NEITHER of the parents are their true biological one? Do we ban these as well or would you just like to wallow in your own shallow hypocrisy?

The point of all of this is that no one should have an issue with a couple of any gender that want to bring up a child in a caring, loving and nurturing environment. If you really want a much more prevalent issue to make a stand on then try then start with the heterosexual lot who neglect, abuse and generally &lt;deleted&gt; up their kids with their racist/homophobic/3rd world views. I can assure you there is many, many more of them.

I find all of this fascinating in as much as it shows just how big a generational gap there is with some of the posters here. And I say generational as even though I am 47 year old, much of my generation and the younger generation are not thinking your outdated, badly researched and frankly absurd suppositions.

You may think you are not homophobic with your "you mind your business and as long as it doesn't effect me, I'll mind my business" attitude but when it actually comes down to it, you don't see homosexual men (or women) as the same as you. When every single bit of evidence points to the fact that gay people are born gay with very little choice on the matter (as one OP observed, why put yourself through all of that abuse and victimization if you could choose to be straight) and that they are more than capable of bringing up a child in a loving and nurturing environment (Modern Family anyone?) and are often better than it than many heterosexual couples, you still feel that the 'traditional' home is the only thing that can work. Would this be the traditional home that produces all the orphans you are discussing here? Is this the traditional home that tops the list of child abuse and child negligence? Is this the traditional home with divorce rates of some 50% quoted for the likes of the US?

I also take offence to the "you chose to be gay so that means you can't have kids" or "why can't you take an orphan instead of going surrogate?" You would never pose these frankly absurd questions to a heterosexual couple yet it seems perfectly fine to you to do so with gay couples. All people have choice and if their preference is surrogacy then who are you to say otherwise?

Your opinions are outdated, your standpoint misguided and the facts you present are neither logical nor particularly well researched. The only saving grace is like the dinosaurs you so aptly mimic, hopefully you and your homophobia will soon be extinct.

I run a recruitment company here in Thailand and handle this sort of thing every day.

Salary negotiations are an integral part of any job offer and need to be handled with care and professionalism. When we are placing a candidate we will always insist on getting 2 references (to check abilities, qualifications, time spent in role etc) but NEVER ask the previous employer about salary, preferring to ask the candidate to supply at least 2 recent salary slips. If they say they have a bonus or commission, then they need to provide documented evidence of this, again in the shape of a pay slip. In short, it is their responsibility to provide written verification to corroborate anything they claim is their remuneration.

As a note of reference, a reasonable salary increase in Thailand is anything from 15% to 30% with the median amount being 20%.

I hope this helps and good luck with your new hire.

This sounds like a fun New years NOT !!

Read the full thread people. It clearly says PUBLIC places. That means on the street, in parks at the Zoo etc. It doesn't mean bars and clubs.