New Thai law to pave way for same-sex partnerships

[AGareth2]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Really!? Where are its native speakers located?

 

the Vatican for starters

(The Holy See)

Edited April 30, 2018 by AGareth2

[mfd101]

1 minute ago, AGareth2 said:

the Vatican for starters

I don't think the Vaticanese are 'native speakers' of Latin. More like white collar migrants.

[Jingthing]

Maybe start a separate topic about Latin or whatever it is y'all are talking about?!? 

[AGareth2]

1 minute ago, mfd101 said:

I don't think the Vaticanese are 'native speakers' of Latin. More like white collar migrants.

just giving an example where it is the official language

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

just giving an example where it is the official language

 

A wrong example.  The last word on this, since it's off topic:  Go to the Vatican City's official web site and see which languages you have the option of reading it in.

 

http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html

[KiwiKiwi]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're something else.

First of all, I don't use the word Queer. I explained why some people do. I think it is really NOT OK for someone so obviously hostile to gay people, who has posted for years various toxic myths about gay such as that they are a danger to children and were mostly molested themselves, that is against equal civil rights for gay people to use the word Queer. From the likes of you, there is no doubt, it is a SLUR. You get that, right? 

 

Marriage is a different thing in each country. Typically there is a religious aspect to marriage AND also a civic aspect to marriage. In some countries they are totally merged. In others, definitely not.

 

Of course for example now in the U.S. two atheists now of the same or opposite sex can go to their local city hall and become legally married. Of course it wasn't always that way for the same sex part but as far as I know it has been for the city hall part. In other words, no need to get a clergyman involved, that being an OPTION. 

 

Same sex marriage is now fully legal in numerous nations in regions all over the world, but some regions are backwards, such as Africa and Asia. 

 

For you to say it is IMPOSSIBLE for people of the same sex to get married is beyond moronic. Why would you bother broadcasting such false idiocies? If you want to say you oppose it, fine and dandy, but impossible, no, that is ridiculous. It's happening every day! 

 

I wonder if he is of the view that being married is not merely a matter of having a few words spoken and a few bits of paper being handed over. Marriage, of whatever species you prefer is a bit more than that, and does not require religion, nor approvel by a civil servant except for financial administration and other contractual detail.

 

If that is the sense he was speaking in then he is quite right, in the same way as you were quite right in the sense of what you were meaning. No need for fisticuffs (virtual or otherwise), everyone is entitled to an opinion and if someone else doesn't like yours, then they are not obliged to discuss it with you.

 

It's like sticking your hand in a fire. If you don't like the feelings you get from doing so, then you always have the option not to do it.

 

[Jingthing]

No you don't get it.

I clearly said it's fine for him to OPPOSE same sex marriage.

It is not OK to state clearly obvious false idiocies and present them as real. He said same sex marriage is IMPOSSIBLE. That is 100 percent objectively WRONG. Get it now?

[AGareth2]

20 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

A wrong example.  The last word on this, since it's off topic:  Go to the Vatican City's official web site and see which languages you have the option of reading it in.

 

http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html

look up the Holy See on Wiki

last word as it is off topic 

[KiwiKiwi]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No you don't get it.

I clearly said it's fine for him to OPPOSE same sex marriage.

It is not OK to state clearly obvious false idiocies and present them as real. He said same sex marriage is IMPOSSIBLE. That is 100 percent objectively WRONG. Get it now?

Not sure who your comment is directed at. If it was me I stand by my attempted explanation, it is correct, but I really don't have a dog in this race. Beyond trying to understand them in terms of my chosen profession, I couldn't frankly care less what anyone else's preferences or inclinations are, it's a free world and everyone should be free to carve out their niche in it so long as it is not detrimental to anyone else.

 

[Jingthing]

47 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Not sure who your comment is directed at. If it was me I stand by my attempted explanation, it is correct, but I really don't have a dog in this race. Beyond trying to understand them in terms of my chosen profession, I couldn't frankly care less what anyone else's preferences or inclinations are, it's a free world and everyone should be free to carve out their niche in it so long as it is not detrimental to anyone else.

 

Are you serious? Please don't play such silly games. YOU were defending the POV of greenchair saying that same sex marriage is impossible is a legitimate POV. I corrected YOU because YOU defended him. Duh.

 

Of course, with 100 percent certainty, same sex MARRIAGE is POSSIBLE (in jurisdictions where it is now legal which are now many). To say it is impossible reveals total idiocy.

Of course right now in THAILAND, indeed it is not possible here in a legal sense because Thailand has not as yet made it legal. There are sometimes ceremonies of same sex marriage here which are symbolically meaningful to the people involved, but legally meaningless. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Jingthing

[KiwiKiwi]

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Are you serious? Please don't play such silly games. YOU were defending the POV of greenchair saying that same sex marriage is impossible is a legitimate POV. I corrected YOU because YOU defended him. Duh.

 

Of course, with 100 percent certainty, same sex MARRIAGE is POSSIBLE (in jurisdictions where it is now legal which are now many). To say it is impossible reveals total idiocy.

Of course right now in THAILAND, indeed it is not possible here in a legal sense because Thailand has not as yet made it legal. There are sometimes ceremonies of same sex marriage here which are symbolically meaningful to the people involved, but legally meaningless. 

 

Sorry friend but at the point you start to get all emotional, I start to want to be somewhere else or talking about something else.

 

If you do not understand that by using the word 'marriage' you and he are talking about 2 different things, then I can't really be of any help to you. Let me try and point out some of the things you appear not to understand:

 

"Of course, with 100 percent certainty, same sex MARRIAGE is POSSIBLE (in jurisdictions where it is now legal which are now many). To say it is impossible reveals total idiocy."

 

What you appear to be saying here is that marriage is 100% possible, except when it isn't. Excellent.

 

"Of course right now in THAILAND, indeed it is not possible here in a legal sense because Thailand has not as yet made it legal. There are sometimes ceremonies of same sex marriage here which are symbolically meaningful to the people involved, but legally meaningless."

 

Here you are making exactly the same point as he was, and as I was, but you appear not to see how silly that really is. Anyway, I'm out, the day is too short to have to deal with silliness and hysteria. I have nothing to offer you.

 

Have a good day and try to remain calm.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Sorry friend but at the point you start to get all emotional, I start to want to be somewhere else or talking about something else.

 

If you do not understand that by using the word 'marriage' you and he are talking about 2 different things, then I can't really be of any help to you. Let me try and point out some of the things you appear not to understand:

 

"Of course, with 100 percent certainty, same sex MARRIAGE is POSSIBLE (in jurisdictions where it is now legal which are now many). To say it is impossible reveals total idiocy."

 

What you appear to be saying here is that marriage is 100% possible, except when it isn't. Excellent.

 

"Of course right now in THAILAND, indeed it is not possible here in a legal sense because Thailand has not as yet made it legal. There are sometimes ceremonies of same sex marriage here which are symbolically meaningful to the people involved, but legally meaningless."

 

Here you are making exactly the same point as he was, and as I was, but you appear not to seem how silly that really is. Anyway, I'm out, the day is too short to have to deal with silliness and hysteria. I have nothing to offer you.

 

Have a good day and try to remain calm.

 

NO!

You have totally twisted what he said.

He wasn't saying same sex marriage is impossible in THAILAND.

He was saying same sex marriage is impossible PERIOD.
That is 100 percent false.

That level of lying and idiocy is completely indefensible.

Again, I respect the right of people to oppose legalization of same sex marriage even though I disagree with them.

I don't respect the right of people to  create fake alternative universes and try to push their idiocy on other people.

You don't like people getting emotional? Fine. Let's not engage with each other in future -- SORTED.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Jingthing

[Eligius]

3 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

It really doesn't matter what your opinion is.  Language evolves.  Those changes are driven by popular usage.  People will call civil unions "marriage", as they have already started to do.  Within a very short time, your opinions will be as relevant as the dead language you pin your arguments to.

Absolutely correct, Attrayant: words and concepts evolve - they don't remain static and fixed in stone. For example, the word 'nice' in Shakespeare's time had the connotation of 'foolish' or 'silly' - but it no longer means that. In Milton's day, the word 'involved' meant 'surrounded by/ wrapped in' - but no longer. And equally concepts change: the concept of 'noble' originally applied to social rank and status - but later came to include nobility of mind and character (regardless of social rank).

 

So although the word and concept 'marriage' may have originally denoted a specific phenomenon, that understanding can mutate and change - to the point where, today, it is absolutely correct and acceptable (unless one objects on religious grounds) to speak of 'gay marriage'. 

 

As Baboon would say: 'it is what it is'!

[newnative]

3 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Didn't say that. There;s probably lots of proof and lots of papers, but frankly I don't care enough to look just so you can be more educated.

 

I guess you could ask Elton John and her husband, that might work.

  So, in other words, no proof again.

[KiwiKiwi]

28 minutes ago, newnative said:

  So, in other words, no proof again.

Is there something I can help you with? You seem to have a fixation with proof. What 'proof' would satisfy you? 'Proof' of what exactly?

 

 

[d2b2]

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

The origin of marriage comes from the Latin word maritaticum. The definition of that word is the union of a man and a woman. Which is derived from the word maritatus (masculine ) and martata  (feminine ) or male and female.  The original intention of marriage was to give ownership of the woman to a man. 

Why the queer (you all said you prefer to be refered to as queer now ).community would even contemplate marriage is beyond me. It is impossible for male, male, female, female to be married. 

A civil union, is a legal partnership between 2 people. Perfectly surfice in my knowledgeable opinion. 

Separate but equal is by it's very name unequal. There is no way around it

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

The origin of marriage comes from the Latin word maritaticum. The definition of that word is the union of a man and a woman. Which is derived from the word maritatus (masculine ) and martata  (feminine ) or male and female.  The original intention of marriage was to give ownership of the woman to a man. 

Why the queer (you all said you prefer to be refered to as queer now ).community would even contemplate marriage is beyond me. It is impossible for male, male, female, female to be married. 

A civil union, is a legal partnership between 2 people. Perfectly surfice in my knowledgeable opinion. 

Better check a dictionary.

 

Your definition of marriage is outmoded.

 

Times have moved on.

[Jingthing]

31 minutes ago, d2b2 said:

Separate but equal is by it's very name unequal. There is no way around it

Yes, but Thailand isn't even close to offering a civil union with the same legal rights as marriage. I think nations as many have already should just include same sex couples in marriage, but civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage are certainly a big step up when you have nothing. 

[stephen tracy]

10 hours ago, possum1931 said:

Absolute nonsense.

Not nonsense at all. FritsSikkink is quite right. Children are not born with bias or prejudice, they learn that from their parents. 

[newnative]

26 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Is there something I can help you with? You seem to have a fixation with proof. What 'proof' would satisfy you? 'Proof' of what exactly?

 

 

    You seem to have lost the thread.   P.17, Possum1931 replies to the claim of another poster that young people don't have an issue with gays.  Possum1931 says "Absolute nonsense"--which I and others take to mean that young people do have a problem with gays.  P. 18, another posters asks Possum1931 to "Proof it", meaning give some proof that young people do have an issue with gays.  At that point you replied to the "Proof it" comment,  "Ask any psychologist over the age of 40", which wasn't really any proof, which prompted my comment,  "So, no proof then."   I think we're up to date now.  

[NanLaew]

On 4/25/2018 at 1:42 AM, NCC1701A said:

how about equal rights for expats?

...take a number

[KiwiKiwi]

36 minutes ago, newnative said:

    You seem to have lost the thread.   P.17, Possum1931 replies to the claim of another poster that young people don't have an issue with gays.  Possum1931 says "Absolute nonsense"--which I and others take to mean that young people do have a problem with gays.  P. 18, another posters asks Possum1931 to "Proof it", meaning give some proof that young people do have an issue with gays.  At that point you replied to the "Proof it" comment,  "Ask any psychologist over the age of 40", which wasn't really any proof, which prompted my comment,  "So, no proof then."   I think we're up to date now.  

 

I think you're right, I had lost the thread, thank you for the reprise. I probably got bored and lost attention.

 

I am of the belief that children of same-sex marriages do suffer from maladjustment and societal integration issues. I doubt there is definitive proof because of the PC problem, any psychologist saying this would be subject to harassment, vilification and personal attack from thos who likely have a vested interest or some boat to row in the matter.

 

Having said that, a quick (and it was quick) canter around Google produces much what I would expect - a whole bunch of non-convincing evidence on both sides, from people or organisations who would probably be very vulnerable to discredit from vested-interest groups on both sides of the argument.

 

And having said that, I have had a few (not a lot because the whole same-sex parenting matter is relatively new and largely an unknown quantity for that reason) patients/clients come to me for professional psychological analysis or treatment, and what I've heard during those sessions clearly suggests that adopted (especially as infants) children of same-sex marriages can be a problem for kids. For what it's worth, the incidence and severity of these problems seems to be more of a problem when both parents are male, more so than if both parents are female, but to be candid, the sample size is so small as to be inconclusive and pretty anecdotal on its own.

 

Do you perchance have any proof (evidence will do if proof is not to be found) that same-sex children fall within normal boundaries in their integration and broader psychology? Let's see if it's just talk or if there's any substance to your rather vocal, manipulative and unconvincing position...

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[stephen tracy]

23 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

I think you're right, I had lost the thread, thank you for the reprise.

 

I am of the belief that children of same-sex marriages do suffer from maladjustment and societal integration issues. I doubt there is definitive proof because of the PC problem, any psychologist saying this would be subject to harassment, vilification and personal attack from thos who likely have a vested interest or some boat to row in the matter.

 

Having said that, a quick (and it was quick) canter around Google produces much what I would expect - a whole bunch of non-convincing evidence on both sides, from people or organisations who would probably be very vulnerable to discredit from vested-interest groups on both sides of the argument.

 

And having said that, I have had a few (not a lot because the whole same-sex parenting matter is relatively new and largely an unknown quantity for that reason) patients/clients come to me for professional psychological analysis or treatment, and what I've heard during those sessions clearly suggests that adopted (especially as infants) children of same-sex marriages can be a problem for kids. For what it's worth, the incidence and severity of these problems seems to be more of a problem when both parents are male, more so than if both parents are female, but to be candid, the sample size is so small as to be inconclusive and pretty anecdotal on its own.

 

Do you perchance have any proof (evidence will do if proof is not to be found) that same-sex children fall within normal boundaries in their integration and broader psychology? Let's see if it's just talk or if there's any substance to your rather vocal and unconvincing position...

 

I would expect that once it becomes more and more socially acceptable, there would be less chance of a child feeling stigmatized in any way. I think, at this still early stage, it would be impossible to reach any firm conclusions. And there are so many variables; environment, social status, peers (kind of falls into the other two), etc. I only have one example to go by that I've seen up close, and that kid is female being raised by two males and is a very bright, happy switched on kid, but the parents very comfortable financially and live in a very liberal community. She knows having two fathers is not the norm but doesn't seem to think that not the norm is a negative thing. The fathers told me that the one issue in the family is that she views the stay-at-home dad as the disciplinarian (much to his disappointment), and the working dad as the fun one. But this kind of dynamic would not be unusual in a heterosexual marriage/family. At the end of the day, I don't think the sexual orientation of a parent/guardian etc. has any bearing on the happiness of a child and how well they are raised but if the comments on this thread are in any way a reflection of how people feel about the issue, I'd day for the most part that we are not in terrible shape. As for the negative views expressed - and none of them have any substance - I guess western society just needs a little more time to progress. To dust off the old cobwebs. Even though member 'greenchair' might be inadvertently instilling his beliefs in his child (through his mistrust of men (gay and straight), this doesn't necessarily mean that his child will grow up to espouse the same views. Even one of Osama bin Laden's children has completely rejected his father and his views and that poor kid grew up on jihadist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. The mold can be broken. 

[KiwiKiwi]

25 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

I would expect that once it becomes more and more socially acceptable, there would be less chance of a child feeling stigmatized in any way. I think, at this still early stage, it would be impossible to reach any firm conclusions. And there are so many variables; environment, social status, peers (kind of falls into the other two), etc. I only have one example to go by that I've seen up close, and that kid is female being raised by two males and is a very bright, happy switched on kid, but the parents very comfortable financially and live in a very liberal community. She knows having two fathers is not the norm but doesn't seem to think that not the norm is a negative thing. The fathers told me that the one issue in the family is that she views the stay-at-home dad as the disciplinarian (much to his disappointment), and the working dad as the fun one. But this kind of dynamic would not be unusual in a heterosexual marriage/family. At the end of the day, I don't think the sexual orientation of a parent/guardian etc. has any bearing on the happiness of a child and how well they are raised but if the comments on this thread are in any way a reflection of how people feel about the issue, I'd day for the most part that we are not in terrible shape. As for the negative views expressed - and none of them have any substance - I guess western society just needs a little more time to progress. To dust off the old cobwebs. Even though member 'greenchair' might be inadvertently instilling his beliefs in his child (through his mistrust of men (gay and straight), this doesn't necessarily mean that his child will grow up to espouse the same views. Even one of Osama bin Laden's children has completely rejected his father and his views and that poor kid grew up on jihadist camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. The mold can be broken. 

 

Interesting. I agree that it's early days, but I strongly suspect that the lack of a gender role-model (a mum for a girl in a male/male family and a dad for a boy in a female/female family), will result in trauma, all my training and other enquiries into the way our psychology has developed lead me to believe that while more time is required before drawing conclusions (I have no evidence for this because none exists, but I suspect the role model problem will become an issue in the lead-up to, onset and aftermath of puberty). Still, I guess we'll see, and I would be quite happy to be wrong, just so long as we know.

 

Personally, and setting aside the unquestionably important issues of liberty, and personal choices & security, I can't help feeling that while terrifically enlightened and all that, we are building a bitter psychological harvest in our society while trying hard to be so liberated and accommodating. Just a thought, not a personal prejudice.

 

Discussions like this are better in the absence of the more excitable devotees...

Edited April 30, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

I am of the belief that children of same-sex marriages do suffer from maladjustment and societal integration issues. I doubt there is definitive proof because of the PC problem, any psychologist saying this would be subject to harassment, vilification and personal attack from those who likely have a vested interest or some boat to row in the matter.

 

If you accept that there is a lack of proof to reach a conclusion, then what is your belief based on?

 

Yet Another Study Shows That Children of Gay Parents Do Just Fine

 

"In a world where marriage between individuals of the same sex is increasingly recognized in law, opponents desperately cling to the belief that children raised by gay couples fare worse when deprived of a parent of either gender. The bulk of research just doesn't back this up. And there is a lot of research out there. Yet the debate persists, so this latest study digs a little deeper into the problem in an effort to clear up persisting arguments."

 

The article is full of citations.  And even if you conclude that there is some slight or minor disadvantage to missing a parent, does that not then argue against single parent households?  Society seems to be perfectly accepting of single parent households, so if one mother is good enough, surely two is even better.  The argument that one parent is better than two just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

 

Quote

I strongly suspect that the lack of a gender role-model (a mum for a girl in a male/male family and a dad for a boy in a female/female family), will result in trauma

 

Again, what is your 'strong suspicion' based on?  Wouldn't the same "trauma" result from single parent households?  They are lacking either a mom or a dad just as same-sex households are.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by attrayant
consolidated two posts into one

[KiwiKiwi]

27 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

If you accept that there is a lack of proof to reach a conclusion, then what is your belief based on?

 

Yet Another Study Shows That Children of Gay Parents Do Just Fine

 

"In a world where marriage between individuals of the same sex is increasingly recognized in law, opponents desperately cling to the belief that children raised by gay couples fare worse when deprived of a parent of either gender. The bulk of research just doesn't back this up. And there is a lot of research out there. Yet the debate persists, so this latest study digs a little deeper into the problem in an effort to clear up persisting arguments."

 

The article is full of citations.  And even if you conclude that there is some slight or minor disadvantage to missing a parent, does that not then argue against single parent households?  Society seems to be perfectly accepting of single parent households, so if one mother is good enough, surely two is even better.  The argument that one parent is better than two just doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

 

 

Again, what is your 'strong suspicion' based on?  Wouldn't the same "trauma" result from single parent households?  They are lacking either a mom or a dad just as same-sex households are

 

 

 

Para 1: Same as all of your beliefs. All of them. Experience, peer input, education, etc, etc.

 

Para 2. If you believe this then good luck. I don't. I've seen way too many 'scientific' studies which draw conclusions from funding, political correctness, desired outcomes etc etc. Remember when 'scientific' studies clearly showed that potatoes are dangerous, that too many eggs will kill you, that the Atkins diet will kill you, that fat was the villain in increasing diabetes and obesity? Those reports were  all wrong , all fraudulent, all trying to justify convictions and beliefs that were wrong.

 

Thanks very much but I will listen to the voices I hear, the sights that I see. Provided I don't shape my opinions or the opinions of others fraudulently, then that suits me much better than putting my faith in any of the many 'bought and paid for scientists'.

 

Look friend. If you have a different opinion from me, that's fine, but be honest about it, do as I have done and rely on your own personal experience, not your own personal prejudice. Please don't tell me "your wrong because *he* says so". With respect, that sort of nonsense just doesn't wash in the current discussion. I've heard the 10% say they're really 40%, I've heard the 10% say if you don't believe us then somehow your not modern, or not open-minded or whatever, and I've seen the damage the 10% do.

 

My beliefs are my beliefs. Perhaps they're right or perhaps they're wrong, but they shape a lifestyle which suits me. If you don't like them then that's fine, go and find your own, just try not to proselytise. My professional opinion and experience, supported by my academic record, suggest that I'm right in what I think, but you will have to believe what satisfies you. Time will tell.

 

You'd be amazed how many PC personal opinions are held merely in order to conform to what other people or trends or fashion dictate. I strongly suspect there are plenty of those on TV too.

 

I don't use Facebook either, or spend my time staring at a telephone. Call me a luddite if you like.

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[newnative]

6 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Interesting. I agree that it's early days, but I strongly suspect that the lack of a gender role-model (a mum for a girl in a male/male family and a dad for a boy in a female/female family), will result in trauma, all my training and other enquiries into the way our psychology has developed lead me to believe that while more time is required before drawing conclusions (I have no evidence for this because none exists, but I suspect the role model problem will become an issue in the lead-up to and  onset of puberty). I guess we'll see and I would be quite happy to be wrong, so long as we know.

 

Discussions like this are better in the absence of the more excitable devotees...

 

7 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

Interesting. I agree that it's early days, but I strongly suspect that the lack of a gender role-model (a mum for a girl in a male/male family and a dad for a boy in a female/female family), will result in trauma, all my training and other enquiries into the way our psychology has developed lead me to believe that while more time is required before drawing conclusions (I have no evidence for this because none exists, but I suspect the role model problem will become an issue in the lead-up to and  onset of puberty). I guess we'll see and I would be quite happy to be wrong, so long as we know.

 

Discussions like this are better in the absence of the more excitable devotees...

     At the risk of being "manipulative and unconvincing", not to mention "excitable", is it not true that a male child raised by a single mother, with the father completely out of the picture, would also "lack a gender role-model"?  And, likewise, a female child raised by a single father?   In one of my earlier, manipulative posts, I pointed this out when someone gave this as a reason for denying gay adoption.  I do like to use sarcasm and I think I also said something like with this reasoning I guess we should outlaw single parents and place all children in homes with a father and a mother.  

     In all honesty, I really haven't tried to be manipulative--I think in some of my posts I'm more likely trying to point out things like the above--you can use this argument but it also applies to 'X' situation, for example.  Sometimes, I can't let a ridiculous comment go unanswered.  I remember one poster making the absurd comment that children of straight parents would have the benefit of grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, cousins, etc.  I didn't think I was being manipulative by pointing out that children of gay parents would also have the benefit of those relatives, too.

     I didn't make Possum1931's statement so I'm not going to look for proof for or against.  When I make a statement, I do try to offer some data to back it up.  For example, I stated in one of my earlier posts that young people in America are more supportive of gay marriage, and gay adoption, than other age groups and I used the most recent polling data cited in Wikipedia.  (87% for gay marriage.  Impressive--and encouraging, if I may be so excitable to say.) 

[Jingthing]

The proposed Thai law doesn't address parental rights.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[KiwiKiwi]

12 minutes ago, newnative said:

In all honesty, I really haven't tried to be manipulative--I think in some of my posts I'm more likely trying to point out things like the above--you can use this argument but it also applies to 'X' situation, for example.  Sometimes, I can't let a ridiculous comment go unanswered.  I remember one poster making the absurd comment that children of straight parents would have the benefit of grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, cousins, etc.  I didn't think I was being manipulative by pointing out that children of gay parents would also have the benefit of those relatives, too.

     I didn't make Possum1931's statement so I'm not going to look for proof for or against.  When I make a statement, I do try to offer some data to back it up.  For example, I stated in one of my earlier posts that young people in America are more supportive of gay marriage, and gay adoption, than other age groups and I used the most recent polling data cited in Wikipedia.  (87% for gay marriage.  Impressive--and encouraging, if I may be so excitable to say.) 

 

"At the risk of being "manipulative and unconvincing", not to mention "excitable", is it not true that a male child raised by a single mother, with the father completely out of the picture, would also "lack a gender role-model"?"

 

That seems likely to be true.

 

"And, likewise, a female child raised by a single father?"

 

So does that.

 

"In one of my earlier, manipulative posts, I pointed this out when someone gave this as a reason for denying gay adoption.  I do like to use sarcasm and I think I also said something like with this reasoning I guess we should outlaw single parents and place all children in homes with a father and a mother. "

 

Good luck with that, though I'm not hopeful.

 

"In all honesty, I really haven't tried to be manipulative"

 

I believe you. Manipulative personalities rarely set out to be manipulative, it's an unconscious process - usually a learned behaviour based on the experience of what has worked and what hasn't worked in the past. We all learn from experience.

 

And so on and so on. Time for a coffee I think.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[greenchair]

Why is it necessary for gays to adopt. 

Why don't they have their own children and see if they turn out damaged. 

You could collect data and post it on thaivisa.