Just now, Fish Head Soup said:

How can two males naturally have a daughter? They can't, so the relationship is unnatural.

 

The definition of unnatural is;

 

1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events

2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : perverse

b : lacking ease and naturalness : contrived

• her manner was forced and unnatural

c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected

• an unnatural alliance

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unnatural

 

Now you have to admit that doesn't sound like a great situation for a child to be brought up in does it?

 

 

 

 

Umm, I am actually familiar with the English language.

Just now, greenchair said:

Well that is the oldest myth in the book. 

You use it to stop people from speaking their truths. The accusation to someone that they are must be secretly gay because they have an opinion that you don't like is a great way to shut that person up. 

Maybe all the gays that want to get married as a man and a woman are secretly wishing to be a heterosexual. 

Me thinks you protest too much.

13 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Your motivation. It shows how you think, which is creepy. You mean you don't have good male friends or relatives?  Or you do but you don't trust them because suspect them all of being potential kiddie-fiddlers?

Either way I'd say that's a problem.

I have many male friends and relatives. 

Only my gay friends have a problem with my efforts to get my child to adulthood untouched. 1 in 4 girls. 1 in 5 boys. It's common sense in the hetro community to be cautious. 

Just now, greenchair said:

I have many male friends and relatives. 

Only my gay friends have a problem with my efforts to get my child to adulthood untouched. 1 in 4 girls. 1 in 5 boys. It's common sense in the hetro community to be cautious. 

You really should seek help. Or move to Riyadh. Or both.

Just now, stephen tracy said:

You really should seek help. Or move to Riyadh. Or both.

Hey hey, what happens in Riyadh, stays in Riyadh.

I hold zero malice towards the gay community anyway, I have plenty of gay friends and they are all nice decent people. I was just playing devils advocate and it snowballed out of control.

 

No offense was meant to anyone but my game may have gone too far so apologies if I offended or upset anyone, it was a bad joke. Wishing you all well.

 

I'm leaving it here.

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There is no reason in the bigoted B.S. you post. You are actually the very worst kind of antigay bigot. You are actively and aggressively trying to propagandize people that gay people are a danger to children. This is the kind of sick hateful stuff used against Jews for centuries. People like you are doing the same thing towards gays. I would say SHAME ON YOU again, but you obviously have no shame.

Scum, sleazy, low quality, toxic, disgusting and now to add bigoted, and shame on me . I did not actively anything that gays are a danger to children. I said that with the likelihood of 1 in 4 children being molested, I choose not to leave my child alone with males. 

All males. The straight males have understanding of that. 

Why do the gays take such offence to it. 

Why do we allow adult gay males to be in a changing room with young boys. But a straight male coach in the changing room with young girls would be fired. But then why is a lesbian allowed in the changing rooms with young girls. 

Are you saying that the coach that likes women is a pervert hanging around in the girls changing room. But the gay male that likes males and the lesbian that likes females should be treated differently, because well, it's antigay. 

Equal rights is universal. 

29 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

You really should seek help. Or move to Riyadh. Or both.

What's riyadh

So the issue is. 

Why can't the gays be happy with a civil union. 

Why do they have to get married. 

What is wrong with a civil union? 

It beggars belief. 

Give em an inch and they take a mile. ?

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

So the issue is. 

Why can't the gays be happy with a civil union. 

Why do they have to get married. 

What is wrong with a civil union? 

It beggars belief. 

Give em an inch and they take a mile. ?

Perhaps your question would be on point and relevant IF the Thai proposal actually was about civil unions that offer basically the same legal rights as marriage.

But as pointed out to you before, and summarily IGNORED, it does no such thing. It is ONLY about assets. It is very limited.

 

 

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

...

Equal rights is universal. 

Could have fooled me. That is rich coming from a person that is aggressively OPPOSING equal rights for anyone that isn't straight to the point of spreading toxic hate speech lies about sexual minorities for years now. 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by Jingthing

5 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

What are "normal" parents?

A male and a female.

11 hours 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. 

what a lot of <deleted> your full of s**t

5 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

Although I'm not gay myself, one of my closest friends is, and it is actually possible to have a conversation with him without his sexuality cropping up. But I guess he must be the exception. Strangely enough, my sexuality doesn't crop up when I meet him for a beer and a chat either. I guess we're both exceptions. Our other good friend takes his kid to visit him as well, and surprisingly enough, he's never once molested the child. Again, must be an exception.

"he's never once molested the child".  Homosexuals cannot be compared to Peados.

I hope you did not think that I thought that.

On 4/26/2018 at 10:16 AM, newnative said:

     So, gay parents don't have aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents?  A child of gay parents would just be missing a mother or a father--and there are many children being raised well with a single male or female parent figure.

Now you are playing with words. It's not that they would just be missing a mother or a father, which is of course a natural occurrence in many families - whether they are being raised well or not is impossible to say since we cannot know how they would be raised in the presence of two parents.

 

The point in this thread is that the child of a homosexual couple would a) not be their fully biological child, and this he/she will learn soon enough have TWO figures of the same sex - whether they choose to play a father/mother role or two fathers or two mothers I don't know.

What I know, and you know as well but choose to ignore apparently, is that this child would grow up surrounded by friends at school and in his teen years who will have a completely different familiar set up. And this will ultimately cause the child, unfortunately we might agree, to feel different and quite possibly discriminated.

 

Frankly, I have no problem with homo couples at all, and I am glad if their rights are recognized and they can live the life they want. However it must be recognized that in many societies there are stigmas that won't go away with a law overnight. In fact, there are many societies in which already adopted children of a different race or color are already "different". Sadly, we can agree, but it takes time to change.

 

To say that the child of a gay couple "would just be missing a mother or father" is myopic.

1 hour ago, arithai12 said:

... this child would grow up surrounded by friends at school and in his teen years who will have a completely different familiar set up. And this will ultimately cause the child, unfortunately we might agree, to feel different and quite possibly discriminated.

 

Frankly, I have no problem with homo couples at all, and I am glad if their rights are recognized and they can live the life they want. However it must be recognized that in many societies there are stigmas that won't go away with a law overnight. In fact, there are many societies in which already adopted children of a different race or color are already "different". Sadly, we can agree, but it takes time to change.

 

To say that the child of a gay couple "would just be missing a mother or father" is myopic.

It is good to read that you have no problem with gay couples at all, Arithai12.

 

On the point regarding kids' feeling different and being discriminated against if raised in a gay family: well, there are all sorts of reasons kids might feel different and be discriminated against: for example, one or more of the parents might be disabled (does that mean disabled persons do not have the right to have children?); one of the parents might be very fat, which could invite ridicule from other kids - or, conversely, very skinny (is either to be forbidden?); in Thailand, the parents might have very dark skin (looked down upon - unjustly - by many Thais), or the children might be adopted (the parents are not the biological parents: is that to be rejected?), etc, etc. There are all sorts of reasons why a child might feel 'different'. Imagine how a child might feel if his or her Thai parents were keen supporters of Prayut and his military junta! Now that really would  be something to feel ashamed of ...!

 

As for the 'would just be missing a mother or father' comment by Newnative, I think he or she was responding to the claim made earlier that children in a gay household would not have any uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, etc. - so the word 'just' referred to that, pointing out that there will potentially be a whole set of family members available to the child.

 

Anyway, I feel that where there is societal prejudice, it is our duty to speak out and oppose it. It is the same with (sadly) Thailand's frequent televisual promotion of rape as an acceptable activity that can lead to real love (there are some soap operas here that actually imply this), or of gays in Thai soaps who are routinely and stereotypically portrayed as simpering and brainless, gossipy twits who are only there to be laughed at. These things need to be spoken out against and a bit more enlightenment brought into public discourse and T.V. 'entertainment'.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by Eligius

26 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

Now you are playing with words. It's not that they would just be missing a mother or a father, which is of course a natural occurrence in many families - whether they are being raised well or not is impossible to say since we cannot know how they would be raised in the presence of two parents.

 

The point in this thread is that the child of a homosexual couple would a) not be their fully biological child, and this he/she will learn soon enough have TWO figures of the same sex - whether they choose to play a father/mother role or two fathers or two mothers I don't know.

What I know, and you know as well but choose to ignore apparently, is that this child would grow up surrounded by friends at school and in his teen years who will have a completely different familiar set up. And this will ultimately cause the child, unfortunately we might agree, to feel different and quite possibly discriminated.

 

Frankly, I have no problem with homo couples at all, and I am glad if their rights are recognized and they can live the life they want. However it must be recognized that in many societies there are stigmas that won't go away with a law overnight. In fact, there are many societies in which already adopted children of a different race or color are already "different". Sadly, we can agree, but it takes time to change.

 

To say that the child of a gay couple "would just be missing a mother or father" is myopic.

   Not being myopic--just stating facts.  Every child being raised by a widowed parent or one with a parent out of the picture is being raised without either a father or a mother figure.  Should single-parenting be outlawed and the children placed in homes only with "father/mother" roles?   In regard to your "fully biological child" argument, every adopted child is also being raised by non-biological parents--I assume adoption by a straight couple is also a no-no in your book with this thinking.  But, let's not stop there.  Inter-racial marriage should definitely be outlawed as the children could feel "different and quite possibly discriminated".  

    Your final argument seems to be that we can't do 'X' (fill in the blank) because in many societies "there are stigmas that won't go away with a law overnight".  Using that logic, the US, for example,  would have never moved forward on segregation, age and sex discrimination, and prohibitions against women voting, inter-racial marriage, women in the military, etc. , etc.  The sooner an injustice is righted, the sooner a so-called "stigma" will diminish.  

    And, you know, the kids will be alright.  Being gay isn't that big a deal anymore with the young.  According to Wikipedia, the largest group supporting gay marriage in America is the age group 18-29, with 83% in favor.   The young also show the highest support for gay adoption.

13 hours 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. 

Oh please, can we have two Thaivisa’s one for the few bigoted and crazy people and one for everyone else? They won’t mind, it will be almost the same as regular Thaivisa. But make sure we call it something else so people like this poster will be sure to know they are not the same. 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by d2b2

8 minutes ago, d2b2 said:

Oh please can we have two Thaivisa’s one for the few bigoted and crazy people and one for everyone else? They won’t mind, it will be almost the same as regular Thaivisa. But make sure we call it something else so people like this poster will be sure they are not the same. 

everyone should have the right to express their opinion as long as it does not break the law

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by AGareth2

9 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

Although I'm not gay myself, one of my closest friends is, and it is actually possible to have a conversation with him without his sexuality cropping up. But I guess he must be the exception. Strangely enough, my sexuality doesn't crop up when I meet him for a beer and a chat either. I guess we're both exceptions. Our other good friend takes his kid to visit him as well, and surprisingly enough, he's never once molested the child. Again, must be an exception.

It is very difficult to recognize privilege when you are the party in favor. You just don’t notice when you have it. But when you have to be careful of every pronoun when discussing your weekend or purposely be vague when discussing your family lest you offend someone who is homophobe or a bigot, then it starts be problematic. You don’t notice your privileged status because you feel entitled to it. Perhaps your friend wants to be more open with you (as he probably is with his other friends) but feels weary or inhibited because he fears your reaction 

29 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

everyone should have the right to express their opinion as long as it does not break the law

It was sarcasm. Pointing out that calling civil unions is not the same as marriage. Separate but equal is not a solution and is by definition not equal.  It is by definition; separate. 

I was making the analogy that having a separate Thaivisa and calling it something different, then segregating people into the separate Thaivisa would not be the same and they would find it unacceptable . I had hoped the sarcasm and analogy would be obvious 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by d2b2

28 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

everyone should have the right to express their opinion as long as it does not break the law

Completely agree with freedom of speech - in fact, I am one of the biggest advocates of it you will find.

 

When people are advocating stoning and killing gays, however - that is incitement to violence, and is quite another matter. Promoting Saudi Arabia as an ideal country for its treatment of gays (as some have suggested on this thread) - well, what can I say ...?

29 minutes ago, d2b2 said:

It is very difficult to recognize privilege when you are the party in favor. You just don’t notice when you have it. But when you have to be careful of every pronoun when discussing your weekend or purposely be vague when discussing your family lest you offend someone who is homophobe or a bigot, then it starts be problematic. You don’t notice your privileged status because you feel entitled to it. Perhaps your friend wants to be more open with you (as he probably is with his other friends) but feels weary or inhibited because he fears your reaction 

Excellent post (above). You make very important and valid points, D2b2 - thanks.

 

By the way, I am sure (in fact, I am certain) that Stephen Tracy in the post you quoted was being sarcastic in some of his comments. He is no homophobe (far from it - that is quite evident to me).

 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by Eligius

6 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Promoting Saudi Arabia as an ideal country for its treatment of gays (as some have suggested on this thread) - well, what can I say ...?

evil?

Does anyone know or have an opinion if the new law the article is about would allow a Thai/farang (or non Thai) couple to legally register their partnership and obtain a non-O visa based on their registered partnership providing they meet the financial requirements the same as a Thai/non-Thai married couple can?

 

Thanks

Does anyone know or have an opinion if the new law the article is about would allow a Thai/farang (or non Thai) couple to legally register their partnership and obtain a non-O visa based on their registered partnership providing they meet the financial requirements the same as a Thai/non-Thai married couple can?
 
Thanks

Obviously it would not be used in immigration matters. Come back in 50 years.

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

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Obviously it would not be used in immigration matters. Come back in 50 years.

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

or citizenship maters

shame 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Obviously it would not be used in immigration matters. Come back in 50 years.

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

any reason why you are sure about that? civil partnerships (that were the prelude to gay marriage) in the west allowed same sex couples to obtain a visa on the basis of their union, why would it be different in Thailand?

 

Also if the new law is 'a progressive step towards legalization of gay marriage' surely if a full same sex marriage was allowed, a O visa based on marriage should be allowed regardless of the gender of the couple?

 

or do you think it will take 50 years to get from this step to a Thailand legalizing a fully same sex marriage?

 

IMO would be a shame if this was the case

 

 

2 minutes ago, jay1980 said:

why would it be different in Thailand?

Because T I T.

4 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

Because T I T.

'This Is Thailand'! Yes, Thailand is generally at least 40 years behind the West in most things - although, to be fair, Thailand has never had the appalling anti-gay laws of the UK in the past, which sent gay men to prison for 2 years - right up until 1967; also, most young and youngish Thais are quite accepting of gay people - some of the much older Thais can be more prejudiced, though  ....

 

Edited April 28, 20188 yr by Eligius