New Thai law to pave way for same-sex partnerships

[wgdanson]

1 minute ago, Eligius said:

Yes, Thailand is generally at least 40 years behind the West in most things (although, to be fair, most young and youngish Thais are quite accepting of gay people - some of the much older Thais can be more prejudiced ...).

And yet they will still watch the ridiculous characters in the TV soaps and 'talent' shows.

[Eligius]

1 minute ago, wgdanson said:

And yet they will still watch the ridiculous characters in the TV soaps and 'talent' shows.

I know, Wgdanson, I agree with you! Myself, I can't understand why anyone would want to watch any of those dreadful Thai soap operas - they make me pull my hair out and want to climb up the wall  - they are so badly acted, so unbelievable, so over the top (the heroes and heroines all have perfect whiter than white skin and live in huge hi-so mansions - and a bit of rape is thrown in, for good measure, which leads to a nice loving romance between rapist and grateful victim. Ugh!!!).

[wgdanson]

2 minutes ago, Eligius said:

I know, Wgdanson, I agree with you! Myself, I can't understand why anyone would want to watch any of those dreadful Thai soap operas - they make me pull my hair out and want to climb up the wall  - they are so badly acted, so unbelievable, so over the top (the heroes and heroines all have perfect whiter than white skin and live in huge hi-so mansions - and a bit of rape is thrown in, for good measure, which leads to a nice loving romance between rapist and grateful victim. Ugh!!!).

You forgot to mention the sound effects !

[stephen tracy]

4 hours 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 

No it's nothing to do with that. I was just making a point to the resident homophobes. The fact is that in my time spent socializing with close friends (whether gay or straight) we tend to have more interesting stuff to talk about than our respective sexual orientations. Of course new girlfriends or boyfriends come up but that's normal chatter. We don't examine our sexual preferences in great depth but it's nothing to do with orientation, we just tend to chat about or lives in general, what good book we just read, where we just traveled to etc. I have a circle of 4 very close friends and one of them is gay. We've known each other since university. We know everything about each other. None of us are in any way inhibited about discussing personal issues with each other. That little group is more like a family to me than my own family. This is why I find 'greenchair's' comments so offensive. If I had a kid, I'd happily dump the little brat on any of my male friends - including my gay friend - so I could get some free time! The whole whether some is gay or straight thing to me is such a none issue. If I like someone's company and I respect that person and find them interesting, that's all that's ever mattered to me in so far as who I spend time with..

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, jay1980 said:

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

I have to say sadly, that probably won't be for some time. Probably not in your lifetime. Though I am against gay marriage, which is designed for a man and a woman. I strongly support civil union, which is designed for people of the same sex. I think it would be great if the gays could get a visa based on a civil union. One way to bring that to the attention of the establishment, would be to write to the ombudsman, telling him your predicament. 

[stephen tracy]

2 hours ago, wgdanson said:

You forgot to mention the sound effects !

I would love top get a job being the sound effects person on those soaps. All you need is a Casio keyboard and you don't have to think.

[Eligius]

42 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I have to say sadly, that probably won't be for some time. Probably not in your lifetime. Though I am against gay marriage, which is designed for a man and a woman. I strongly support civil union, which is designed for people of the same sex. I think it would be great if the gays could get a visa based on a civil union. One way to bring that to the attention of the establishment, would be to write to the ombudsman, telling him your predicament. 

Well, that is a most surprising and unexpected, but welcome, post from Greenchair (above). We make progress! At least Greenchair supports the idea of a legally recognised civil union between two gay people (granting visa rights to the 'foreigner')  - even if he opposes (for religious reasons?) the idea of a gay 'marriage', specifically.

 

There is hope for you yet, Greenchair!

 

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Well, that is a most surprising but welcome post from Greenchair (above)! At least Greenchair supports the idea of a legally recognised civil union between two gay people (granting visa rights)  - even if he opposes (for religious reasons?) the idea of a gay 'marriage'.

 

There is hope for you yet, Greenchair!

 

Don't get carried away. He's on long record of opposing civil unions that carry the same rights as marriage in matters of PARENTAL rights.

[Eligius]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Don't get carried away. He's on long record of opposing civil unions that carry the same rights as marriage in matters of PARENTAL rights.

Oh, I see ...

Thanks for the heads-up.

[dickjones2018]

do you know of any country with more lesbians that thailand ?  so yes, time for marriage, and expensive divorces...

[greenchair]

14 hours ago, Eligius said:

Well, that is a most surprising and unexpected, but welcome, post from Greenchair (above). We make progress! At least Greenchair supports the idea of a legally recognised civil union between two gay people (granting visa rights to the 'foreigner')  - even if he opposes (for religious reasons?) the idea of a gay 'marriage', specifically.

 

There is hope for you yet, Greenchair!

 

Let's not get carried away here. It is nothing to do with religious reasons. The meaning of Marriage is clearly defined in the dictionary and in the law as a union between a man and a woman. A gay men or women union would not fit that definition. why would you even contemplate it. We would have to rewrite all the civil laws to say a union between 2 people. Why can't the straight people keep the phrase 'between a man and a woman ' that has been used for hundreds of years. 

It's like the Muslims saying we can't have pork in schools or the blacks saying we can't have white history in schools because it offends their culture. In fact the gay community should go about creating their own laws that are suitable to their needs, that don't infringe on other people's rights also. As I said. 

A civil union, defined as an official  union between 2 persons of the same sex. Is quite suitable to the gay community. As with the marriage law. You could add further laws that gave you more rights that are suitable to gays. All this LGBTIQQ, and changing the entire marriage system and laws is futile. It's probably added 50 years to the fight for basic gay rights. 

[stephen tracy]

17 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Let's not get carried away here. It is nothing to do with religious reasons. The meaning of Marriage is clearly defined in the dictionary and in the law as a union between a man and a woman. A gay men or women union would not fit that definition. why would you even contemplate it. We would have to rewrite all the civil laws to say a union between 2 people. Why can't the straight people keep the phrase 'between a man and a woman ' that has been used for hundreds of years. 

It's like the Muslims saying we can't have pork in schools or the blacks saying we can't have white history in schools because it offends their culture. In fact the gay community should go about creating their own laws that are suitable to their needs, that don't infringe on other people's rights also. As I said. 

A civil union, defined as an official  union between 2 persons of the same sex. Is quite suitable to the gay community. As with the marriage law. You could add further laws that gave you more rights that are suitable to gays. All this LGBTIQQ, and changing the entire marriage system and laws is futile. It's probably added 50 years to the fight for basic gay rights. 

Well, if it's in the dictionary, we'd better take it seriously. Why didn't you say so in the first place?  The dictionary no less! Is that in addition to the studies? By God man I stand corrected. 

[AGareth2]

35 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

Well, if it's in the dictionary, we'd better take it seriously. Why didn't you say so in the first place?  The dictionary no less! Is that in addition to the studies? By God man I stand corrected. 

don't forget religious tracts

mustn't offend billions of people

[newnative]

51 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Let's not get carried away here. It is nothing to do with religious reasons. The meaning of Marriage is clearly defined in the dictionary and in the law as a union between a man and a woman. A gay men or women union would not fit that definition. why would you even contemplate it. We would have to rewrite all the civil laws to say a union between 2 people. Why can't the straight people keep the phrase 'between a man and a woman ' that has been used for hundreds of years. 

It's like the Muslims saying we can't have pork in schools or the blacks saying we can't have white history in schools because it offends their culture. In fact the gay community should go about creating their own laws that are suitable to their needs, that don't infringe on other people's rights also. As I said. 

A civil union, defined as an official  union between 2 persons of the same sex. Is quite suitable to the gay community. As with the marriage law. You could add further laws that gave you more rights that are suitable to gays. All this LGBTIQQ, and changing the entire marriage system and laws is futile. It's probably added 50 years to the fight for basic gay rights. 

    Hate to rain on your parade but most dictionary definitions of 'marriage' now say 'two persons' or sometimes 'two spouses' rather than 'man and woman'.  So, if you're looking for the dictionary to back you up, that just went out the window.

[AGareth2]

maybe we need to destroy the word matrimony

as it comes from the word meaning mother

[Jingthing]

Legally speaking, greenchair is 100 percent wrong. Other nations have found that IF the goal is include same sex couples in all the legal implications (pro and con of course!) of marriage the absolute simplest way is to simply just do that -- include them in marriage! You can create a separate named thing (either separate but "equal" or separate but unequal) but to do that EQUALLY means changing MANY other complicated laws. In the U.S. I recall it meant changing THOUSANDS of laws. But I get it -- greenchair in his hostile and obsessive attitude that gay people need to be kept away from children obviously doesn't WANT equality for gay people. Too bad for greenchair and his fellow homophobic travelers that marriage EQUALITY has advanced dramatically in so many nations now all over the world. Thailand will be slow for the equality thing. Maybe 50 years is pessimistic and maybe not.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

Let's not get carried away here. It is nothing to do with religious reasons. The meaning of Marriage is clearly defined in the dictionary and in the law as a union between a man and a woman. A gay men or women union would not fit that definition. why would you even contemplate it. We would have to rewrite all the civil laws to say a union between 2 people. Why can't the straight people keep the phrase 'between a man and a woman ' that has been used for hundreds of years. 

It's like the Muslims saying we can't have pork in schools or the blacks saying we can't have white history in schools because it offends their culture. In fact the gay community should go about creating their own laws that are suitable to their needs, that don't infringe on other people's rights also. As I said. 

A civil union, defined as an official  union between 2 persons of the same sex. Is quite suitable to the gay community. As with the marriage law. You could add further laws that gave you more rights that are suitable to gays. All this LGBTIQQ, and changing the entire marriage system and laws is futile. It's probably added 50 years to the fight for basic gay rights. 

And what exactly is “white history”?

 

And, by the way, I have, on two separate occasions, shown you the dictionary definition of marriage and it is not the one you are claiming it to be. 

[Eligius]

43 minutes ago, newnative said:

    Hate to rain on your parade but most dictionary definitions of 'marriage' now say 'two persons' or sometimes 'two spouses' rather than 'man and woman'.  So, if you're looking for the dictionary to back you up, that just went out the window.

I suspect you are right here, Newnative. I've just turned to my trusty Collins English Dictionary (2009) and it defines marriage as:

1. the state or relationship of living together in a legal partnership

2. The contract made between a couple in a legal relationship.

 

It does NOT say that it MUST be between a man and a woman.

 

[mfd101]

42 minutes ago, newnative said:

    Hate to rain on your parade but most dictionary definitions of 'marriage' now say 'two persons' or sometimes 'two spouses' rather than 'man and woman'.  So, if you're looking for the dictionary to back you up, that just went out the window.

Needless to say, the reactionaries choose their dictionaries carefully ...

[d2b2]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

Needless to say, the reactionaries choose their dictionaries carefully ...

They choose dictionaries that reflect themselves, old and unopened

 

[Expatthailover]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

Needless to say, the reactionaries choose their dictionaries carefully ...

Get ready for a deluge of fire and brimstone and plague od locusts on your veggie patch

[KiwiKiwi]

On 4/25/2018 at 7:42 AM, NCC1701A said:

how about equal rights for expats?

No bragging rights. Everyone knows expats are the source of all problems in TL.

 

[stud858]

14 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

No bragging rights. Everyone knows expats are the source of all problems in TL.

 

And equal rights for Aussie rules supporters. Say no to sportaphobia.

[KiwiKiwi]

1 minute ago, stud858 said:

And equal rights for Aussie rules supporters. Say no to sportaphobia.

LGBTQAR?

 

BTW, I believe the Q stands for 'questioning' not 'queer' as reported by someone else in this thread.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about Saudi Arabia, the Middle East and Tasmania have been removed. 

 

Some troll posts and the replies were removed as well. 

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

LGBTQAR?

 

BTW, I believe the Q stands for 'questioning' not 'queer' as reported by someone else in this thread.

Not really.

Q was definitely included at first to mean QUEER.

The QUEER thing is generational. Younger people identified with it more.

It's inclusion horrified a lot of older gay people.

Personally I don't care much either way.

Adding "questioning" as an additional meaning for the Q came later.

Personally, I think that's a stretch.

Reminds me of guys I used to meet that claimed they weren't gay but doing research for sociology class.

In any case, it's a fact the Q meaning QUEER is the primary meaning of the Q letter in LGBTQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

Here you go --

Quote

In 2016, GLAAD's Media Reference Guide states that LGBTQ is the preferred initialism, being more inclusive of younger members of the communities who embrace queer as a self-descriptor.

...

 

Many people have looked for a generic term to replace the numerous existing initialisms.[82] Words such as queer (an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual, or gender-binary) and rainbow have been tried, but most have not been widely adopted.

 

[tukkytuktuk]

queer

 

adjective

1. 1.

   strange; odd.

   "she had a queer feeling that they were being watched"

   synonyms:

   odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, freakish, eerie, unnatural; unconventional, unorthodox, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, anomalous, atypical, untypical, out of the ordinary, incongruous, irregular;  puzzling, perplexing, baffling, unaccountable;  informalfishy, spooky,bizarro, freaky "his diction is archaic and queer"

[KiwiKiwi]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not really.

Q was definitely included at first to mean QUEER.

The QUEER thing is generational. Younger people identified with it more.

It's inclusion horrified a lot of older gay people.

Personally I don't care much either way.

Adding "questioning" as an additional meaning for the Q came later.

Personally, I think that's a stretch.

Reminds me of guys I used to meet that claimed they weren't gay but doing research for sociology class.

In any case, it's a fact the Q meaning QUEER is the primary meaning of the Q letter in LGBTQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

Here you go --

 

Can't se the usefulness of adding queer when gay (a euphemism for homosexual) and lesbian are already represented. Mind you, the intent may simply have been to outrage, that would fit. Not the finest examples of intellect perhaps, resentful but not overly smart or even objective.

 

In any event, the wiki article you linked to says "queer or questioning" so I think the distinction is moot.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎25‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 1:37 PM, possum1931 said:

 as any fair minded person will know what I mean.

Pathetic discrimination based on no facts at all.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎25‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 2:00 PM, possum1931 said:

I suppose you do, so just take a good hard look in it, and welcome to my ignore list.

put me on it too please