New Thai law to pave way for same-sex partnerships

[newnative]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

According to extensive studies, children that grow up to be gay overwhelmingly have been sexually abused as children, have parents that were drug addicts, parents that are alcoholics or have been physically abused. Of course there are some that do not fall into any of those categories. But then if a child was abused at 2 or 3 years old, there's a chance he /she wouldn't remember it. So who knows. Generally speaking there are few gays that didn't have some kind of serious trauma in their childhood. 

Generally speaking, there are few posts as totally wacko as this one.  

[Kadilo]

3 hours ago, greenchair said:

According to extensive studies, children that grow up to be gay overwhelmingly have been sexually abused as children, have parents that were drug addicts, parents that are alcoholics or have been physically abused. Of course there are some that do not fall into any of those categories. But then if a child was abused at 2 or 3 years old, there's a chance he /she wouldn't remember it. So who knows. Generally speaking there are few gays that didn't have some kind of serious trauma in their childhood. 

Your comments are not only ridiculous and invented, they are highly offensive to many. Please stop making a fool of yourself as clearly you are the one who has issues. Take a good deep look at yourself and try and recall if you experienced the same traumas as a child.  

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, greenchair said:

According to extensive studies, children that grow up to be gay overwhelmingly have been sexually abused as children, have parents that were drug addicts, parents that are alcoholics or have been physically abused. Of course there are some that do not fall into any of those categories. But then if a child was abused at 2 or 3 years old, there's a chance he /she wouldn't remember it. So who knows. Generally speaking there are few gays that didn't have some kind of serious trauma in their childhood. 

Nonsense. 

[mfd101]

2 hours ago, ramrod711 said:

I think for the most part, Thai people are much more free and willing to accept other peoples sexuality. Seems to be a much healthier attitude than in the west

I agree with this. It has been my personal experience both in BKK & here in Surin with my Thai b/f - his family, friends, and everyone else.

 

But it does beg the question why the country's laws are so far behind those in The West, & the latest announcement of beginning to think about preparing for the possibility of change is scarcely encouraging ... I guess it's just another illustration of the huge gap in Thailand between The Powers of various kinds and the bulk of ordinary people.

[ramrod711]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

I agree with this. It has been my personal experience both in BKK & here in Surin with my Thai b/f - his family, friends, and everyone else.

 

But it does beg the question why the country's laws are so far behind those in The West, & the latest announcement of beginning to think about preparing for the possibility of change is scarcely encouraging ... I guess it's just another illustration of the huge gap in Thailand between The Powers of various kinds and the bulk of ordinary people.

When my (now) wife and I went to Phuket for the first time in 2005 I had only been in the Thailand for a short time. We went to a travel business on the beach and were served by a person who was dressed as a woman, but seemed to me clearly be male. We booked our trip, and while we were walking away I said to my girlfriend "I think that was a guy", she said "yes". Nothing else, I compared her "so what" response with what my brother went through when he came out. My father never spoke to him again. The attitude here is refreshing, it isn't our business, who cares and what will be will be.

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonsense. 

Ask the gays yourself. 

Almost all were abused at some point in their youth. 

A lot of them struggle their entire lives with promiscuity, depression, and addictions. Many gay females have been raped at a young age. 

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Ask the gays yourself. 

Almost all were abused at some point in their youth. 

A lot of them struggle their entire lives with promiscuity, depression, and addictions. Many gay females have been raped at a young age. 

You assume I do not know gay people. 

 

You assume I do not have gay friends. 

 

You assume too much. 

 

The  views you expressed earlier are absolute nonsense. 

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Kadilo said:

Your comments are not only ridiculous and invented, they are highly offensive to many. Please stop making a fool of yourself as clearly you are the one who has issues. Take a good deep look at yourself and try and recall if you experienced the same traumas as a child.  

Your phrase experienced the same traumas, says that you agree with me. 

I don't know why it would be offensive, a person that has had a traumatic childhood should certainly have no reason to be offended by someone that tries to understand their plight. I was responding to the analogy that a child raised by a homosexual would not grow up gay and they know that because, why do children of heterosexuals grow up to be gay. So I was merely giving some of the reasons of why that happens. Those reasons being child abuse, sexual abuse and disfunctionAl families. 

[greenchair]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You assume I do not know gay people. 

 

You assume I do not have gay friends. 

 

You assume too much. 

 

The  views you expressed earlier are absolute nonsense. 

Since I told you to ask your gay friends about their early life, you could hardly say I assumed you don't have gay friends. 

We all have gay friends. 

All my gay friends were abused at a young age. 

So getting back on topic. 

A civil union, is specifically designed so that gay people will have rights with their partners. 

A marriage union is specifically designed so that heterosexual people will have rights with their partners. 

It means the families of partners can't just march in and take away everything you have built together. 

Civil union /marriage have the same objective.

I don't understand why they insist on a marriage which is defined as man / woman. 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Since I told you to ask your gay friends about their early life, you could hardly say I assumed you don't have gay friends. 

We all have gay friends. 

All my gay friends were abused at a young age. 

So getting back on topic. 

A civil union, is specifically designed so that gay people will have rights with their partners. 

A marriage union is specifically designed so that heterosexual people will have rights with their partners. 

It means the families of partners can't just march in and take away everything you have built together. 

Civil union /marriage have the same objective.

I don't understand why they insist on a marriage which is defined as man / woman. 

Your views on the childhoods of gay adults are at best nonsense.

 

A marriage is a union of two individuals who love each other and wish to commit to each other.

 

Their gender is irrelevant. 

 

As is your definition of marriage. 

[Jingthing]

greenchair continues to post his filthy anti-gay lies as he has been doing for years already.

 

Back to reality --
10 ANTI-GAY MYTHS DEBUNKED

Quote

 

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

...

THE FACTS
No scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

 

 

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked

Edited April 27, 2018 by Jingthing

[cyberfarang]

44 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Ask the gays yourself. 

Almost all were abused at some point in their youth. 

A lot of them struggle their entire lives with promiscuity, depression, and addictions. Many gay females have been raped at a young age. 

Totally agree. I remember a couple of gay British comedians, Wilfred Bramble and Kennith Williams. They struggled with their sexuality for years. It is said that Kennith Williams couldn`t live with it anymore and killed himself.

 

I have have known several bargirls that eventually evolved an extreme hatred of men and turned to lesbianism.

[AGareth2]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

10 ANTI-GAY MYTHS DEBUNKED

who by?

you 

or scientific fact?

 

[Eligius]

12 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Totally agree. I remember a couple of gay British comedians, Wilfred Bramble and Kennith Williams. They struggled with their sexuality for years. It is said that Kennith Williams couldn`t live with it anymore and killed himself.

 

I have have known several bargirls that eventually evolved an extreme hatred of men and turned to lesbianism.

The reason such people 'struggled with their sexuality for years' was because they were unfortunate enough to grow up at a time and in a culture where gayness was considered just about the worst crime or sin possible - a shameful, disgusting, execrable, despicable and loathsome aberration. 

 

Can you imagine growing up as a young gay man in a society where such attitudes held sway? Where people spat at you, shunned you, reviled you and physically attacked you - just because you were gay? Is it any wonder sensitive people would 'struggle with their sexuality' when virtually the whole of society was day in, day out telling them that they were sick, depraved individuals who would be better off - both for themselves and society - dead?!

 

The societal animus against gay people destroyed the great writer, Oscar Wilde - and caused English literature (and world culture) to lose a huge talent at a relatively young age - when so many more years of literary creativity could have streamed from that artist. Dead in his early forties - after being sentenced to two years in jail - just for being a gay man.

 

Shameful. And it was not Oscar Wilde who was shameful - but the inhumane society who (unlike Christ's example with the prostitute) metaphorically and almost literally stoned him to death!

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Eligius

[AGareth2]

14 minutes ago, Eligius said:

(unlike Christ's example with the prostitute) metaphorically and almost literally stoned him to death!

 

Christ said "you who are without sin, cast the first stone."

90% are without sin

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed. 

[Eligius]

26 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

Christ said "you who are without sin, cast the first stone."

90% are without sin

Not according to Christ! That was the whole point of his words and his stopping of the stoning  - that we are all 'sinners' - none of us is perfect! After his admonishing words, the crowd of stone-throwers dispersed without any further violence against the woman, as they knew (and Christ knew) that they were all sinners in one way or another. 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Eligius

[sanuk711]

On 4/25/2018 at 6:37 AM, webfact said:

The abbreviation LGBTIQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning. The last group refers to an individual who is uncertain of his or her sexual orientation.

Seriously ??....there is a name for a group who do not have a clue what sex they are..........gosh I am to old for this Sh1t...................

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Your views on the childhoods of gay adults are at best nonsense.

 

A marriage is a union of two individuals who love each other and wish to commit to each other.

 

Their gender is irrelevant. 

 

As is your definition of marriage. 

Look it up. The definition of marriage is a union between 2 people. Specifically a man and a woman. 

The legal definition is the union of a man and a woman, to be a man and a wife. 

Why a gay couple would even consider marriage is beyond my understanding. 

They have a civil union, of which the legal definition is the union of two people of the same sex which gives them similar rights as marriage. 

You don't see heterosexuals running around demanding a civil union screaming discrimination. Even though an opposite sex couple would be denied that privilege. I am glad thailand has legalised acivil union. Hopefully it ends there. 

Nothing to do with love. 

Love is irrelevant. 

It's a legal necessity for finances. 

Nothing more. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by greenchair

[greenchair]

18 minutes ago, sanuk711 said:

Seriously ??....there is a name for a group who do not have a clue what sex they are..........gosh I am to old for this Sh1t...................

Hilarious, me too. 

What was wrong with G.A.Y.

Apparently there are alsorts of letters that could be added. 

 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Look it up. The definition of marriage is a union between 2 people. Specifically a man and a woman. 

The legal definition is the union of a man and a woman, to be a man and a wife. 

Why a gay couple would even consider marriage is beyond my understanding. 

They have a civil union, of which the legal definition is the union of two people of the same sex which gives them similar rights as marriage. 

You don't see heterosexuals running around demanding a civil union screaming discrimination. Even though an opposite sex couple would be denied that privilege. I am glad thailand has legalised acivil union. Hopefully it ends there. 

False information in that post above. 

Thailand is considering a way for same sex couples to register their relationship for legal protections about ASSETS only.

That is not a "civil union" that is even close to the same legal implications as marriage.

 

It's hard to debate with a person that insists on repetitive posts that have nothing to do with facts or reality. But when people post blatant falsehoods, they invite CORRECTION. 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Jingthing

[Kadilo]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Your phrase experienced the same traumas, says that you agree with me. 

I don't know why it would be offensive, a person that has had a traumatic childhood should certainly have no reason to be offended by someone that tries to understand their plight. I was responding to the analogy that a child raised by a homosexual would not grow up gay and they know that because, why do children of heterosexuals grow up to be gay. So I was merely giving some of the reasons of why that happens. Those reasons being child abuse, sexual abuse and disfunctionAl families. 

I think something probably happened in your life for you to be so twisted. Obviously if it happened when you were maybe 2 or 3 years old there's a chance you wouldn't remember it. 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Kadilo

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Hilarious, me too. 

What was wrong with G.A.Y.

Apparently there are alsorts of letters that could be added. 

 

It is a lot of letters. Many people that identify as one of the letters find it a bit much too. That's how it has evolved for various reasons.

It used to be (in the U.S anyway) simply GAY LIBERATION. 

But things change. 

Lesbians probably felt that gay was more associated with men.

Bisexuals don't feel gay or straight, so there's the B.

T obviously for transgender people, which is about gender identification rather than sexual orientation. That was probably the biggest stretch of inclusion. 

The Q thing I think it really about a trend with younger people (now not so young and possibly the trend has weakened) identifying with the Q word. Many people don't love it but they don't hate it so much to make a thing about it.

The theme is inclusion of all these sexual minorities across generations of people. I can think of worse linguistic compromises. 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Jingthing

[wgdanson]

13 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Hilarious, me too. 

What was wrong with G.A.Y.

Apparently there are alsorts of letters that could be added. 

 

Like another L in ALLSORTS!   lol

[mfd101]

Actually, in France more young heterosexual couples are now having civil unions than are having 'marriages'. Makes sense in a modern secular society.

 

In my and my partner's case, we got married in a Buddhist village ceremony here in Surin (which took care of the basic SOCIAL purpose of 'marriage' which is recognition & acceptance), followed by a civil union in Canberra (which took care of financials & wills).

 

Conservatives are always obsessed with language and think that, like their world, language never changes. In fact, words and their meanings evolve constantly. In my lifetime (since 1949) the MEANING of the word 'marriage' and the REALITY of marriage out in the world have changed several times: with the availablity from the late 50s of The Pill, women's lib & women working (my mother, born in 1916, never worked outside the house from the day she was married at 21), blame-free divorce, equal incomes ... all of these have made 'marriage' today VERY different from what it was 50 or 60 years ago. And it is little more than 120 years ago that women were still considered 'chattels' of their husbands under the law ...

 

The notion that 'marriage' is eternal & God-given is simply childish nonsense. I don't suppose God minds (any more than Buddha) as long as people are kind, gentle, loving & generous towards each other.

Edited April 27, 2018 by mfd101

[Bluespunk]

38 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Look it up. The definition of marriage is a union between 2 people. Specifically a man and a woman. 

The legal definition is the union of a man and a woman, to be a man and a wife. 

Why a gay couple would even consider marriage is beyond my understanding. 

They have a civil union, of which the legal definition is the union of two people of the same sex which gives them similar rights as marriage. 

You don't see heterosexuals running around demanding a civil union screaming discrimination. Even though an opposite sex couple would be denied that privilege. I am glad thailand has legalised acivil union. Hopefully it ends there. 

Nothing to do with love. 

Love is irrelevant. 

It's a legal necessity for finances. 

Nothing more. 

I looked it up

 

1. 

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

 

Abd then I looked it up again

 

Definition of marriage

1a see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law 

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected;  especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 

3: an intimate or close union

 

It would appear your definition is stuck in the past. 

 

It’s outmoded, it’s no longer relevant, it’s just plain wrong. 

 

Time to move on. 

 

And not just in terms of your dictionary definitions. 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Eligius]

21 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

Like another L in ALLSORTS!   lol

I actually do think this ever-growing string of letters is really rather silly and invites unnecessary ridicule. The term 'gay' is good, as it can refer both to men and women (one can speak of 'gay men and gay women'). I personally would like to see the term 'gay+' adopted. Why? Because of the various 'alternative' sexualities, gays (men and women) are probably the most numerous and were historically the first to 'come out' and challenge the sexual orthodoxy. Calling the smaller percentage of transgenders, unsures, etc ' Plus', strikes me as in no way demeaning or disrespectful - in fact, it is according members of these groups a 'Plus' sign - so is literally positive!

 

The problem with the LGBQQIU etc, etc. thing is that it is becoming laughably long and unwieldy as a name - and just keeps getting longer. 

 

No, stick to something more compact, sensible and manageable as a nomenclature. Otherwise we might as well just reel off the entire alphabet. And that would not be doing anyone any favours. It would just turn the whole thing into a joke - which it most definitely should not be.

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Eligius

[greenchair]

1 hour ago, Eligius said:

The reason such people 'struggled with their sexuality for years' was because they were unfortunate enough to grow up at a time and in a culture where gayness was considered just about the worst crime or sin possible - a shameful, disgusting, execrable, despicable and loathsome aberration. 

 

Can you imagine growing up as a young gay man in a society where such attitudes held sway? Where people spat at you, shunned you, reviled you and physically attacked you - just because you were gay? Is it any wonder sensitive people would 'struggle with their sexuality' when virtually the whole of society was day in, day out telling them that they were sick, depraved individuals who would be better off - both for themselves and society - dead?!

 

The societal animus against gay people destroyed the great writer, Oscar Wilde - and caused English literature (and world culture) to lose a huge talent at a relatively young age - when so many more years of literary creativity could have streamed from that artist. Dead in his early forties - after being sentenced to two years in jail - just for being a gay man.

 

Shameful. And it was not Oscar Wilde who was shameful - but the inhumane society who (unlike Christ's example with the prostitute) metaphorically and almost literally stoned him to death!

 

Yes, well that was then and this is now. 

Fat people used to be bullied. Christians used to be beaten up. Black people couldn't get jobs. White people were put on slave ships. Here we are today. It's impossible for the gays to fully integrate.

Why would they want to. 

Gays have their own world of which hetro can never be a part of. 

Blacks have their world. 

Christians have their world.

Addicts have their world. 

Muslims have their world. 

Smokers have their world. 

Each to their own. 

I am against the promotion of any of it to children. Because the children have no understanding of what they are truly agreeing to. 

 

[greenchair]

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I looked it up

 

1. 

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

 

It would appear your definition is stuck in the past. 

 

 

Look at the legal definition. 

And yes historically, meaning up until a very few years ago. 

Imagine the patty tantrum if I was to organise a hetro parade. With banners and bands of men and women walking half naked down the street kissing and yelling how wonderful it is to be heterosexual. Gays rights are great. But all this LGBTIQQ stuff is getting rediculous. 

 

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Look at the legal definition. 

And yes historically, meaning up until a very few years ago. 

Imagine the patty tantrum if I was to organise a hetro parade. With banners and bands of men and women walking half naked down the street kissing and yelling how wonderful it is to be heterosexual. Gays rights are great. But all this LGBTIQQ stuff is getting rediculous. 

 

Go for it, organise your parade. I won’t object. 

 

Oh, by the way I looked up legal definitions of marriage. Here’s what it says. 

 

“In 2015, the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges marked a historic change in marriage law across the United States by declaring that denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision invalidated all state statutes and constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriages”

 

Definition

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.”

 

Both quotes attributed to Cornell Law School

Edited April 27, 2018 by Bluespunk
Forgot to add an it