Experts say Thailand not ready for same-sex marriage, but partnership recognition likely

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, greenchair said:

And they are addressing that issue by providing a legally binding civil union. And still everyone complains. It has to be marriage apparently. Why does it have to be marriage. ? What is the point that you are trying to make. 

The Thai proposal actually in play is about ASSETS only. We've been over this before. Stop acting stupid. 

[greenchair]

10 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

It is a distinction without a difference.

What is the purpose of calling a legal contract between two men or two a civil union and not marriage? And before somebody answers about Gays destroying the institute of “marriage” heteros have been doing a great job of it. There is no “god” anyway and many old practices and definitions are backward and should be discarded anyway.

Why should people's old values be taken away from them, just so you can have your values respected. A civil union is a way for the tradition and values of marriage to be maintained ,whilst respecting and upholding the values and rights of an extremely diverse group of people. Why are priests losing their jobs for refusing to go against their deep personal beliefs. And it won't end there. Now you want it taught in schools. Now you want to adopt people's children, with no regards to the wishes of the parents. Now you want transgender toilets in schools. Now you want extra benefits. Now we have to say the letters of the alphabet.  I just don't want to deal with it anymore. It's not a great lifestyle. It's awful. A gay life is quite difficult. Why encourage it. 

[greenchair]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The Thai proposal actually in play is about ASSETS only. We've been over this before. Stop acting stupid. 

Yes, it is about assets. 

So is marriage about assets. 

What other thing does marriage offer that a civil union doesn't offer? 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

Why should people's old values be taken away from them, just so you can have your values respected. A civil union is a way for the tradition and values of marriage to be maintained ,whilst respecting and upholding the values and rights of an extremely diverse group of people. Why are priests losing their jobs for refusing to go against their deep personal beliefs. And it won't end there. Now you want it taught in schools. Now you want to adopt people's children, with no regards to the wishes of the parents. Now you want transgender toilets in schools. Now you want extra benefits. Now we have to say the letters of the alphabet.  I just don't want to deal with it anymore. It's not a great lifestyle. It's awful. A gay life is quite difficult. Why encourage it. 

The level of your obsessive hatred for gay people bleeds through your many posts on these topics. Over the years, you repeatedly push far right wing hate speech about most gay people being molested and your outrageous fixation on trying to conflate being gay with pedophilia. Yes, you have your free speech here (congrats) trying to INFECT others with your toxic POV. 

If you think gay life is so bad, do not be gay.

 

[Destiny1990]

Farang gays who are paying  10 M bht for fake sin sod always welcome.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Yes, it is about assets. 

So is marriage about assets. 

What other thing does marriage offer that a civil union doesn't offer? 

Seriously? Are you that clueless?

For example, in the USA --

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

Tax Benefits

Estate Planning Benefits

Government Benefits

Employment Benefits

Medical Benefits

Death Benefits

Family Benefits

Housing Benefits

Consumer Benefits

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

 

Also of course we all know by now your toxic obsession with denying PARENTAL rights to gay people. I submit someone so obsessed with denying civil rights to entire classes of people is not such a great role model for children themselves, and has a lot of nerve thinking they're superior enough to dictate their intolerance onto others.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Jingthing

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

greenchair, Your deep bias is noted.

 

How about getting rid of marriage licenses altogether? All couples could go down to the courthouse/Amphoe/city hall and pick up their “Notice of Establishment of Civil Partnership Certificate”.

 

Reactionaries can apply to their private/religious institution of choice for a paper that says they are “married”.

 

 

 

 

 

[greenchair]

2 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

If your grandchild said I am gay, would you love them?

Well I have never said I have any aversion or dislike of gay people at all. I believe  in my body my choice. People at 18 should be allowed to use drugs, smoke, have group sex, be gay , be religious, dress the way they want. 

 none of the above should be promoted or introduced to children below at least 16. Unfortunately, the addicts, priests, smoke companies, and gay community, all know that they must recruit their victims young. 

So if my grandson was not indoctrinated to a persuasion at an early age, I would be happy for him. I would love my grandson if he was an opium addict. It doesn't mean I would encourage him to grow to be an opium addict. 

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well I have never said I have any aversion or dislike of gay people at all. I believe  in my body my choice. People at 18 should be allowed to use drugs, smoke, have group sex, be gay , be religious, dress the way they want. 

 none of the above should be promoted or introduced to children below at least 16. Unfortunately, the addicts, priests, smoke companies, and gay community, all know that they must recruit their victims young. 

So if my grandson was not indoctrinated to a persuasion at an early age, I would be happy for him. I would love my grandson if he was an opium addict. It doesn't mean I would encourage him to grow to be an opium addict. 

 

 

 

 

The level of your homophobia is epic.

You try to dress it up with fake tolerant BS.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
Your fear/hate rhetoric of gay people "recruiting" their child victims is classic. 

Equating being gay which is totally normal sexuality to being a drug addict.

Congrats on having a platform here to endlessly broadcast your hate speech, which frankly makes Putin look good. 

[greenchair]

41 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Seriously? Are you that clueless?

For example, in the USA --

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

Tax Benefits

Estate Planning Benefits

Government Benefits

Employment Benefits

Medical Benefits

Death Benefits

Family Benefits

Housing Benefits

Consumer Benefits

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

 

Also of course we all know by now your toxic obsession with denying PARENTAL rights to gay people. I submit someone so obsessed with denying civil rights to entire classes of people is not such a great role model for children themselves, and has a lot of nerve thinking they're superior enough to dictate their intolerance onto others.

 

 

I am sure that a civil union will have similar if not exactly the same rights. And if it doesn't, then that is the next step. You don't take away what someone else has built just because you don't have that. You have to build your own value system with your own laws, that will be more suitable to your community. The churches did it. the Muslims did it. The blacks did it. Even the I love being fat people community did it. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, greenchair said:

I am sure that a civil union will have similar if not exactly the same rights. And if it doesn't, then that is the next step. You don't take away what someone else has built just because you don't have that. You have to build your own value system with your own laws, that will be more suitable to your community. The churches did it. the Muslims did it. The blacks did it. Even the I love being fat people community did it. 

I think just simple basic MARRIAGE EQUALITY is the way to go. I don't go for your trying to suggest that gay people are so different that they don't deserve what you have. That's simple bigotry. You have all your lame excuses about fear of "recruiting" children, but bottom line, all you're doing is promoting ignorance and hatred against minority groups. Shame on you. 

[greenchair]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The level of your homophobia is epic.

You try to dress it up with fake tolerant BS.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
Your fear/hate rhetoric of gay people "recruiting" their child victims is classic. 

Equating being gay which is totally normal sexuality to being a drug addict.

Congrats on having a platform here to endlessly broadcast your hate speech, which frankly makes Putin look good. 

I've been polite and joined in the discussion. I think it's a great thing that the Thai government will recognise gay partnership. Being gay, addicted, or religiously obsessed is not normal. With gay and addicts being well in the minority. 

Both issues carry consequences that are not suitable to marriage. Extremely high suicide rates, depression, promiscuity, nomadic tenancies, problems getting employment or keeping employed. Alcohol and drug abuse. 

These are the facts. 

Sad facts but true nonetheless. You have to calm down. Nobody hates you. It's in your head. 

[greenchair]

48 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

greenchair, Your deep bias is noted.

 

How about getting rid of marriage licenses altogether? All couples could go down to the courthouse/Amphoe/city hall and pick up their “Notice of Establishment of Civil Partnership Certificate”.

 

Reactionaries can apply to their private/religious institution of choice for a paper that says they are “married”.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do we have to change. Why is it so necessary for the gay to force their values on us, whilst being angry if we try to force ours on you. I have been to the gay parts of town. The lights and the costumes. The sense of community and feeling the you belonged to a group of common ideals, looked really wonderful. But I was straight and I wasn't welcome there. The gays have their own language, own customs that they understand. There are a few that venture into the common world, but from what I see, are not comfortable outside of their own. We are different tribes so to speak. I really don't understand what the obsession is to have a marriage or force us to have a civil union. It's not our problem. 

[greenchair]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think just simple basic MARRIAGE EQUALITY is the way to go. I don't go for your trying to suggest that gay people are so different that they don't deserve what you have. That's simple bigotry. You have all your lame excuses about fear of "recruiting" children, but bottom line, all you're doing is promoting ignorance and hatred against minority groups. Shame on you. 

Marriage marriage. Why is it so important for you to have marriage. What you're trying to do is normalise something that is not normal. Especially in Thailand. From having openly gay people in schools, to putting gay men in soap operas and movies and commercials. Just like the tobacco companies and the Christian churches. Spending your lives recruiting as many as you can to the cause. Marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Not all gays support marriage either. My gay friend thinks it's rediculous.  My gay nephew laughs about it. he just says, what for? It's not him at all. 

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, greenchair said:

I've been polite and joined in the discussion. I think it's a great thing that the Thai government will recognise gay partnership. Being gay, addicted, or religiously obsessed is not normal. With gay and addicts being well in the minority. 

Both issues carry consequences that are not suitable to marriage. Extremely high suicide rates, depression, promiscuity, nomadic tenancies, problems getting employment or keeping employed. Alcohol and drug abuse. 

These are the facts. 

Sad facts but true nonetheless. You have to calm down. Nobody hates you. It's in your head. 

"Facts" you gleaned from far right wing hate speech websites. I challenged you before for the sources for your facts, and that's where you pointed me too. Those are garbage hate speech sources. You have no facts.

 

To others (you're irredeemable) IMAGINE if we had a member posting the kind of filthy hate speech lies about any other minority group, such as Jews or blacks with sources for their "facts" from KKK/Nazi type hate speech websites. Would you think that was OK to stand without pushback? It wouldn't be and what greenchair is doing and has been for years is not either. 

[Monomial]

The only legitimate argument against gay "marriage" (and no, "Ewww. Gross." doesn't count as legitimate) is that it may allow the ability of gay couples to adopt children and engage in surrogacy. Whatever your position on the topic, there is anecdotal evidence that children benefit from both male and female parents. There are also several long term studies that have shown that children raised by same sex couples are no worse off than children raised by heterosexual couples. However, there is no effective way to prove these studies are not biased, and there is the rub. The only way to prove there is no bias in a psychology study, is to have many studies done that are biased on both sides, and then to be able to notice patterns on each side and correct for the bias. In the case of the effect of same sex couples raising children, there has been no significant funding for biased studies sponsored by the anti gay community to prove that children are worse off. This evidence is limited to anecdotal arguments, which leaves open the question of whether the studies that show no correlation are actually trustworthy or are biased by the pro side. Psychology studies can not be controlled the same way physical studies are. They need statistical distributions to rule out any kind of cognitive interpretations.

 

It is a difficult argument, because experimenting on actual children is not acceptable, thus it is hard to imagine there would ever be enough evidence to prove categorically one way or the other whether children raised by same sex couples are actually affected by this arrangement.

 

Whatever your beliefs, it is not realistic to expect to be able to discount this argument today through reasoned logic due to the lack of provably unbiased studies, and ultimately the decision is going to be made by the social values of the people making the laws. I think Thailand is well prepared to accept homosexual civil unions, but homosexual marriage I believe will not overcome the concerns many have about how it may affect children.

 

But children are a want, not a basic human right. When I was growing up, I wanted to be popular and a handsome man, but I never achieved that. I was forced to come to Thailand. :-)  Wanting something doesn't necessarily mean you are entitled to it. That said, what any 2 consenting adults decide to do is entirely their choice, and the neither the government nor anyone else has any business discriminating against a group unless a 3rd person, like a child, may be disadvantaged by it.  

 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Why do we have to change. Why is it so necessary for the gay to force their values on us, whilst being angry if we try to force ours on you. I have been to the gay parts of town. The lights and the costumes. The sense of community and feeling the you belonged to a group of common ideals, looked really wonderful. But I was straight and I wasn't welcome there. The gays have their own language, own customs that they understand. There are a few that venture into the common world, but from what I see, are not comfortable outside of their own. We are different tribes so to speak. I really don't understand what the obsession is to have a marriage or force us to have a civil union. It's not our problem. 

Is there a question there? An angry man, spewing rubbish. Why don’t you mind your own business?
Or perhaps you are a closet case of bisexuality?
Often the most hateful, I’m told.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jingthing]

I reject that argument that gay people shouldn't have marriage EQUALITY because of parental rights.

Let's say there were studies that heterosexual Muslim couples in general were objectively not as good at parenting as heterosexual Buddhist couples. There are no such studies because people aren't bigoted enough to even do them. But if there were, then what? Say Muslims can't have children? Say Muslims can't get married and must do something lesser without parenting rights? Yeah, you could do that if you were a right wing Islamophobic fascist but it would be a basic violation of their human rights. So nobody civilized would deny that to Muslims. Yet all these lame fear mongering arguments suggesting it's OK to deny basic human rights to gay people. Also keep in mind that being married does not require having children, whether you're gay or straight. Lesbians are going to be more likely than gay men to have children because of course they don't need adoption to have them. 

 

Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand for all!

Edited May 5, 2018 by Jingthing

[manarak]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I reject that argument that gay people shouldn't have marriage EQUALITY because of parental rights.

Let's say there were studies that heterosexual Muslim couples in general were objectively not as good at parenting as heterosexual Buddhist couples. There are no such studies because people aren't bigoted enough to even do them. But if there were, then what? Say Muslims can't have children? Say Muslims can't get married and must do something lesser without parenting rights? Yeah, you could do that if you were a right wing Islamophobic fascist but it would be a basic violation of their human rights. So nobody civilized would deny that to Muslims. Yet all these lame fear mongering arguments suggesting it's OK to deny basic human rights to gay people. Also keep in mind that being married does not require having children, whether you're gay or straight. Lesbians are going to be more likely than gay men to have children because of course they don't need adoption to have them. 

 

Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand for all!

some good points there, but IMO sexual orientation (of which several are not widely accepted, and even considered criminal in some countries) can't be put on the same level as religion (widely accepted), unless we specifically consider religious sects that are rejected by the mainstream.

I say enough statistical material should by now exist to know whether the sexual orientation of adoptive parents has a significant influence on the adoptive children or not - and we should do this because adoption is a decision made for children. I can only quote Descartes: "Savoir, c'est bien juger" - so let's try to know as much as we can to make informed decisions instead of blindly applying ideology.

Edited May 5, 2018 by manarak

[Monomial]

38 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I reject that argument that gay people shouldn't have marriage EQUALITY because of parental rights.

Let's say there were studies that heterosexual Muslim couples in general were objectively not as good at parenting as heterosexual Buddhist couples. There are no such studies because people aren't bigoted enough to even do them. But if there were, then what? Say Muslims can't have children? Say Muslims can't get married and must do something lesser without parenting rights? Yeah, you could do that if you were a right wing Islamophobic fascist but it would be a basic violation of their human rights. So nobody civilized would deny that to Muslims. Yet all these lame fear mongering arguments suggesting it's OK to deny basic human rights to gay people. Also keep in mind that being married does not require having children, whether you're gay or straight. Lesbians are going to be more likely than gay men to have children because of course they don't need adoption to have them. 

 

Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand for all!

 

You did not pay close enough attention to what I said. Children are a "want", not a basic human right. I don't think civil unions (= marriage without rights of adoption and surrogacy) will be denied, only the right to adopt children or engage in surrogacy. Your argument about Muslims is specious because heterosexual Muslim couples could have children through natural, biological processes, so this right could not be denied without violating their natural ability to procreate. No extraordinary effort is involved. Society could, however, in your scenario, opt not to allow Muslims to adopt children or engage in surrogacy if they were proven less fit parents. They do so already to single parents. These are not natural abilities, these are socially allowed institutions. That is not a violation of human rights. It is a recognition that the needs of the child must be considered as well.

 

The point of contention is whether or not having a child through adoption and surrogacy is a basic human right. Too many people believe that such a thing is not, and it is a value choice for which there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Again, wanting something does not mean you are entitled to it. Life isn't fair. Where an action does not affect a third person, of course everyone should be treated the same. For extraordinary cases though that affect a third party, such as adoption and surrogacy, the larger picture and social considerations need to be considered.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Monomial

[inThailand]

Is this really about gays, lesbians, etc? Or more about promoting the idea of marriage. Thai men like the no marriage and bang um up and leave culture. 

 

We don't need no stinking marriage! 

Edited May 5, 2018 by inThailand

[pornprong]

On 5/5/2018 at 9:17 PM, greenchair said:

The gay community is so confused. They cant even sort out what they want to call themselves.It's really their own business. They understand each, have their own language, own customs and own community. The truth is the gay community do not want the het community down at their hangouts trying to mingle and pretend we are the same. The gays really need partnership laws that are specific for their needs. Remember though, if they want to fit in the mainstream, it means following certain social norms that the rest of us have to follow. 

Man boy relationships would be out. Promiscuity nope, no more. Dressing up in provocative clothing and parading down the street with whips and chains, UM, I'd be arrested. Orgies, free sex, porn, sex in public toilets, it's all got to go. 

Welcome to civilized life and marriage. 

 

Charming.

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, pornprong said:

Charming.

Are the Blacks and Jews next?

Not often agreeing with you but poster greenchair sounds like a religious fanatic. 

[pornprong]

5 hours ago, greenchair said:

Why should people's old values be taken away from them, just so you can have your values respected. A civil union is a way for the tradition and values of marriage to be maintained ,whilst respecting and upholding the values and rights of an extremely diverse group of people. Why are priests losing their jobs for refusing to go against their deep personal beliefs. And it won't end there. Now you want it taught in schools. Now you want to adopt people's children, with no regards to the wishes of the parents. Now you want transgender toilets in schools. Now you want extra benefits. Now we have to say the letters of the alphabet.  I just don't want to deal with it anymore. It's not a great lifestyle. It's awful. A gay life is quite difficult. Why encourage it. 

http://www.acgrayling.com/morality-and-the-churches

[KiwiKiwi]

 

Experts say Thailand not ready for same-sex marriage, but partnership recognition likely.

 

On receipt of an appropriate inducement...

Edited May 6, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[KiwiKiwi]

1 hour ago, pornprong said:

http://www.acgrayling.com/morality-and-the-churches

 

<sigh>

Edited May 6, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Eligius]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

"Facts" you gleaned from far right wing hate speech websites. I challenged you before for the sources for your facts, and that's where you pointed me too. Those are garbage hate speech sources. You have no facts.

 

To others (you're irredeemable) IMAGINE if we had a member posting the kind of filthy hate speech lies about any other minority group, such as Jews or blacks with sources for their "facts" from KKK/Nazi type hate speech websites. Would you think that was OK to stand without pushback? It wouldn't be and what greenchair is doing and has been for years is not either. 

You do an excellent job, Jingthing, of pushing back (to use your nice phrase) against anti-gay viewpoints. I agree with you. Although people should have the right to express opinions that do not support homosexuality (short of advocating hatred and violence against gay people), those who are more enlightened can valuably  expose the falsehoods of some of the claims made, e.g. the outrageous and ludicrous assertion that most gays were sexually abused when they were children - for which there is not one shred of sound scholarly or gay-community (anecdotal) evidence. It is a wild and baseless claim that needs to be exposed for what it is: undiluted ignorance and prejudice.

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

<sigh>

Wow, Grayling's bit is a humdinger. Very good!

 

As a homosexual and cultural conservative all my life I have tended to be sympathetic towards at least the Catholic church on many issues, but Grayling certainly sticks the knife in rather effectively ...

[chainarong]

Regardless of which way people portray their views and  they are entitled to do so, it will be like everywhere else, divide the nation, I don't intend to take any side in this debate, however I seen some of the most hateful comments from the religious nutters in OZ that it made me glad I'm an Atheist..................................

[KiwiKiwi]

8 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Is there a question there? An angry man, spewing rubbish. Why don’t you mind your own business?
Or perhaps you are a closet case of bisexuality?
Often the most hateful, I’m told.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why is it rubbish? Because you don't like it? Because you want it to be untrue? Neither reasoning assists those (like me) who would like to understand more.

 

Time to grow up and learn that not everyone is going to agree or sympathise with you perhaps?