Longwood50

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You don't understand how this works. Marriage is codified in law in hundreds or thousands of ALL apects of life.

If you create a new category you must legislate each and every one of those at all levels of governance if the intention is to have the same thing different name.

So now you're saying you're for 100 percent equaility? Really? Including parenting and adoption?

Yes and a legal union call it what you want between two people of the same sex is "not codified"  in many areas.  So again, all it would take is for there to be a common "term" used to identify what a union between same sex couples is called and enact that into law conveying the same rights and privileges to unions between opposite sex couples.  

Codifying that is no more cumbersome or difficult than getting each governmental body around the world to change their laws allowing same sex couples to allowed to "marry" 

I am all for peoples rights and privileges however I want nothing to do with any legislation that is somehow used to indoctrinate.  I don't want people teaching children their political, religious, or sexual philosophies.  In my opinion that is the "real agenda" behind the adamant push for same sex unions to be called marriages.  The want to convey the "image" that same sex unions are just as normal as heterosexual unions are.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  

Using politics instead of sex, in the USA there are two major and one minor political parties.  Republican, Democrat and Libertarian.  

There are also numerous decided political parties that are "out of the norm"  They include the Communist Party, Antifa, The Christian Liberty Party, the Socialist Equality Party.  I would not be in favor of anything that somehow conveys these parties are mainstream and their philosophies widely held. 

Just as I respect someone's right to their religion, I don't wish to have it shoved in my face and expect me to embrace it.  

One thing I find particularly puzzling with the LGBT community is the almost total fixation on who they want to have sex with or in the case of a trans sexual " what sex they identify as.

If you ask the vast majority of people to describe who "they are" You will typically get, responses like, I am a father, or a mother.  I am a banker, plumber, machinist  I am an avid golfer, tennis player, hunter.  I am a Christian, a Jew, an Arab.   I am an immigrant.  Etc. 

You never hear from someone, I am a ardent heterosexual.  You never see a heterosexual needing to carry a flag or march in a parade to "celebrate" that they like to have sex with a person of the opposite sex. 

However with the LGBT community is seems to be " their entire identity" or certainly the one that hold most self identifies who they are as a person.  It is as if they are seeking some public acceptance of their lifestyle.  If a person is truly comfortable with who they are as a person, they certainly should not need someone else to validate it for them. 
 

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You cheated!

You said you were OK with a new name IF it included all the rights of marriage.

You lost me there.  You asked if I was ok with heterosexual unions having a different name than a union of same sex couples and that name being something other than being called a marriage.  I said yes. 

If the rights are identical then the only thing by having a different name for the same rights, privileges and obligations is to make a distinction that a union of two people of the same sex is "different" 

I am not for taking away any rights or privileges'.  But I am adamantly against  anything that attempts to convey the lifestyle as being identical to a heterosexual union and that being used to indoctrinate people that  someone that lifestyle is every bit as normal as a heterosexual couple.  I would say the same thing about a man who can legally have multiple wives.  That is not any more "normal" than a same sex life partnership.  

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Being gay is not a choice.

Oh so you are saying "it is based in ones DNA"  LOL 

If that is the case please show me the research that establishes a different DNA pattern in someone gay versus bi, versus trans etc. 

Also please show where we have the identical same sex preference shown in other mammals or does your DNA concocted theory only evidence itself in humans. 

 

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

ow about you an admitted heterosexual in the straight lifestyle accept civil unions for you guys

If there were two different terms I would be ok with that.  If they wished to call today's traditional marriage a life partnership or civil union and a ceremony by two same sex a marriage.  Yes 

The point still is that words have meaning.  You see though we all are human beings we use the terms male and female to designate what sex a person is.  Though we are all human beings we use the term, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, German, Italian etc to differentiate people on the basis of ethnicity. 

Even the gay community distinguishes its sexuality by using the term "gay" as contrasted to "straight"  So unions between two people of the same sex should be termed something different than one between two people of the opposite sex.  

 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

You persist with that lifestyle garbage

It is a lifestyle choice.  Not any different than those who wish to be celibate, those who wish to remain single, and those who wish to have a heterosexual marriage. 

The fact is that the "true agenda" is not equality of rights but the "image" of the identical "normality" of the lifestyle to traditional heterosexual marriage allowing those who follow that lifestyle to attempt to indoctrinate the public.  

As said if someone terminates me and they call a payment to me a bonus, a severance, or a breakup fee I could car less if it is truly about the equality.  However the push to have it termed a marriage has far less to do with equality and far more to do with promoting the lifestyle.  And to that, I disagree.  Live your life as you see fit but do not attempt to indoctrinate your politics, religion, or sexual lifestyle.  
 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Separate but equal is not equality.

Oh so if we have mens teams and womens teams "that is not equality"  If you have mens sports and womens sports that is not equality.   We have separate toilets for men and women.  There are separate dressing rooms for men and women.  We have separate dorm rooms for men and women.  I could go on. 

From work, if I get a "vacation day" versus a "personal day"  The only thing different is the term and it is used to differentiate.  

Again if this a matter of equal rights, then great lets talk about whether that should be done via a civil partnership, civil union or whatever can be agreed on as "the term" for a same sex union with the same rights and privileges  as a marriage. However I contend it has nothing to do with equal rights otherwise there would not be this pressing need to have it be terms a marriage.  The real objective is to "convey" that the same sex marriage should be viewed as "normal" when in fact normal means what is typical.  A LGBT union is anything but normal.  It is the exception and any effort to promote it as the "norm" is merely to further their goal of indoctrination.

It is no different than the movement to allow trans athletes to compete and indoctrinate the public that this is "normal" and that someone who removes their genitals and identifies as a member of the opposite sex should be thought of identically as someone who was born as that sex. 

You are already seeing the effects of that indoctrination as the public becomes conditioned to think that somehow it is ok that a person with the physical attributes of a man can fairly compete with someone born as a biological woman. 

The same is true the LGBT community who wants to have society "embrace" the normality of their lifestyle when in fact it is decidedly in the minority and should be identified as "alternative" lifestyle.  

   

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

6 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

The term "rights" is a red herring.  What the LGTB community wants is for the public to "embrace" their lifestyle giving it the impression to future generations that their lifestyle is not just accepted but rather endorsed.  They want it taught in the schools so that the children's impression is that the LGTB lifestyle is every bit as normal as the heterosexual lifestyle.  Now by "normal" I do not mean to convey that it is objectionable but rather it is not the norm.  A small fraction of the population identifies as LGB and even fewer identify as transsexual. So if teaching was really promoting the truth it would be that the LBTB lifestyle is not the norm but rather the exception. 

I am totally for legal protections that allow a same sex couple to enjoy the same rights and protections as married men and women.  However I am not for the term "marry" that conveys that it is identical in every way to a marriage between a man and a woman.  We use terms to convey a message and the message should be that the union is equal but not identical.  Society does that all the time.  A merger and an acquisition accomplish the same thing a common ownership but done in a different way.  Conception of a child whether invitro, or heterosexual sex produces the same result - a child but society chooses to use different terminology "because of the differences".

A union between two people of the same is "is different" than one between two people of the opposite sex.  Call it a civil union, a civil partnership,  a domestic partnership, a registered relationship but it should provide the identical rights but not be called a marriage. 

To continue to clamor for only "marriage" to be acceptable means that the true goal is the indoctrination of society and not the pursuit of "equal rights" 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
 

Expand  

3 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Even in countries with the most draconian measures and punishments, drugs are widely available.

Yes I am sure it is just a coincidence that the countries that are Muslim and have the harshest penalties have the lowest rate of opiate use with Singapore being the lowest in the world. 

5 hours ago, Jonathan Fairfield said:

Finance Minister Arkhom Termpittayapaisith said 2022 should see the start of the rebound, with the economy expected to expand 4% next year amid strong export growth and the injection of 1 trillion baht in state funds into economic circulation.

45 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Legalizing it is the only option.

Using that logic I guess we should also decriminalize murder because murders will always happen.  How about decriminalizing rape because rape will always happen.  Instead of selling drugs how about trafficking in sex slaves, that has happened forever and since we have no chance of stopping it, merely make the buying and selling of other humans legal. 

You may never be able to stop completely the drug trade but I suggest you can greatly diminish it by making the penalties for trafficking in it a mandatory death penalty for those convicted of being "serious" drug dealers And the death penalty would be carried out shortly after sentencing and not the 30 year stay in prison with all of your needs attended to. 

You can also start to severely punish those caught as habitual users.  Not any different than drunk drivers.  1st offense gets you some penalties and counseling.  Your 3rd offense gets you locked up in jail. 

I know this if the penalty for lets say stealing was a slap on the wrist and a 100 baht fine you would have more of a likelihood to steal than if you were caught the penalty was the loss of your wrist the way they do in Muslim countries. 

Yes money is a motivating factor that is why the punishment needs to be so certain and severe as to deter those considering entering the drug trade to continue.  Legalizing it only takes the profit motive out of the criminals and expands the number of addicts.  Hardly a good trade off. 

Live in a village that is not very tightly monitored.  We had a security guard for awhile but despite having them, they really never properly monitored who could enter the village. 

I was wondering if anyone has researched the various security systems and has a recommendation for inside and outside camera's.  I know you can link almost all of them to the internet but do you use a service or have the activity recorded on a hard drive or flash card.  

Live in Pattaya if someone has used a system provided by someone in this area. 

22 hours ago, Smithson said:

 

For a successful drug policy, try Portugal.

Maybe Portugal should try Greece's Policy.  Portugal's rate though lower than other EU countries is not markedly different than Romania, Austria, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, or Sweden.  By contrast Greece with mandatory life penalties for those who are involved in criminal trafficking organizations, and it has a markedly lower rate of drug problem than Portugal.  PS Singapore with the death penalty has the lowest rate of drug problems in the world. 

As for "human rights" I have no problem whatsoever sentencing a drug trafficker to death.  Bleeding heart liberals seem to ignore the deaths that these people cause via selling poison to the public and the pain and suffering inflicted on those addicted.  They seem to have no empathy for the crime, and related killings associated with the drug trafficking.  To me, the drug trafficker who is responsible for selling hard drugs has committed a far more heinous crime than a person who kills another with a gun/knife in that the drug pusher potentially causes many deaths.  

You want an example of a rehabilitated drug trafficker.  One that is no longer in a physical state allowing them ever to sell drugs again. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/597788/problem-drug-use-prevalence-europe-by-country/

https://greekreporter.com/2015/09/30/new-law-in-greece-will-sentence-certain-drug-dealers-to-life-in-prison/

30 minutes ago, Smithson said:

It's disturbing that people are so keen to see others dies over what is a health problem, while ignoring other successful strategies.

Oh you mean like the "enlightened" policies in the USA or perhaps the Netherlands.  

If you want to stop money laundering, you make the penalties for getting caught severe.  If you want to stop speeding you make the penalties severe.  If you want to stop drunk driving, you make the penalties severe.  And if you want to stop drug trafficking you make the punishment so severe that few will want to risk it. 

That is just common sense.  You ought to try that sometime too. 

5 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

I would explain differences to you but i have neither the time nor the crayons

It would be "nice" if you pointed that out in the original post.  I am talking about LEGAL executions.  

From the sounds of the article which PS was 2004 or 17 years ago these "extra judicial" homicides were not entirely drug related. 

I am not for vigilante justice.  However I am totally for execution of those found "guilty" in court and proved beyond a reasonable doubt they are drug traffickers.   Touting that  3,000 people killed in 2004 in a program that has long since ended has proved that it does not stop today's drug problem is nonsensical.  But I have neither the time or crayons to explain that to you. 

1 minute ago, Smithson said:

Singapore is an island state know for it's lack of human rights

The fact that Singapore is an island is irrelevant. 

Now perhaps you are worried about the rights of drug traffickers. The drug trafficker is certainly not concerned with the "human rights" of others. 

You see I am more concerned over the rights and lives of those the traffickers take away and the victims of the crimes caused in those who steal to support their drug habits. 

 

3 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Locking them up is not the answer either if all they are is using for personal use and not selling.  If arrested they should be put on supervised release where they are tested frequently.

Locking up the offender is not going to accomplish much if anything.  However executing those trafficking in drugs will reduce the supply and hence the number of people who become addicted and/or exposed to drug usage. 

47 minutes ago, Bert got kinky said:

Who mentioned 3,000 overdoses.

Are you saying these were executions?  If so, you are sadly mistaken.  In 7 decades there is a total of only 320 executions for ALL OFFENSES

24 minutes ago, Dionigi said:

This was in part due to the focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, especially for drug offenses.

I believe they consider "caning" to be rehabilitation. 

Also people are sentenced to prison and potentially rehabilitated only if the amount caught with is less than the amount considered for the person to be considered a trafficker. 

Also they definitely cut the recidivism rate for traffickers.  The penalty of death is MANDATORY
. 
 

54 minutes ago, Smithson said:

This is simply wrong, a war on drugs here killed around 3,000 in as many months. Still plenty of drugs around

You "kill" the drug dealers and severely punish those who are caught with illegal drugs.  The fact that 3,000 people died from overdose is not any sort of deterrent. 

54 minutes ago, Smithson said:

This is simply wrong, a war on drugs here killed around 3,000 in as many months. Still plenty of drugs around

You "kill" the drug dealers and severely punish those who are caught with illegal drugs.  The fact that 3,000 people died from overdose is not any sort of deterrent. 

You want to control illegal drugs, you make the punishment severe enough to deter people from using the drugs and selling the drugs. 

To do otherwise is to trivialize the seriousness of the offense. 

 

No should be fine.  Real Estate agent taking me on a tour of the property later today.