I often feel the rules to citizenship aren't up to date with the times, the Foreign Husband amendment was progressive and up with the times, but its been 12 years since, and still doesn't address the many issues that prevail. LGBT people aren't represented, while they may have legitimate relationships. Also, not all men choose to marry, for many reasons- security financial etc., there is no provision of acceptance of a civil partnership. It also seems that citizenship is only availiable to a select few that meet a certain demographic. The income requirements are extremely high as a single male. Plus the PR requirement increases the hurdles. In a country where an average graduate makes 24k/month in Bangkok. Asking for a 80-120k salary, is about attracting a rich demographic/or discouraging applicants. Deterring the single male, and making it a niche thing to posses. While nothing is there for a woman. If this isn't sexism, I don't know what is. I know I am bashing this, but someone has to say it. This thread has so many people, who in their quest to naturalize often overlook the negatives, because the positives far outweigh the negatives. If any policy maker reads this thread, it would help to make amendments, amendments as to length of stays say 10-20 Years (Like every other sane country, which provides some level of social stability, after all its social stability that people apply for citizenship anyway) rather than a high income to qualify. Yes, I am sour. Unmarried and yes, I don't make the income requirement to qualify for PR and hence citizenship.