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

[KiwiKiwi]

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

You quoted MY post. Naturally one would assume you were replying to me....

Really? OK, Sadly, I don't really care enough to go back and check so I'm happy to take your word for it. Which brings the exchange to a useful halt I think.

Edited May 7, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[sjaak327]

30 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

In my opinion, this is wrong in 3 ways:

 

1.legalized same sex marriages and more will follow, simply because it is the right thing to do... Well, that's an opinion stated as if it were a fact. Why is it 'the right thing to do'?

 

2. 'I have yet to see a single valid argument why same sex marriages should not be allowed'. If that were a valid argument, why have they not been allowed throughout history? So far as I'm aware, even in ancient Greece and Rome, where homosexuality was widespread,  and presumably homosexual co-habitation also prevalent, homosexual marriage was not on the statute books, neither was it practiced informally on a grand scale (so far as I'm aware anyway). So what makes it appropriate now?

 

3. ''It defies believe how anyone can object to same sex marriages.' Does it? Why? Everyone is a stakeholder in society, for good or ill. There's nothing to prevent two men or two women living together as man and wife. Whilst I agree that homosexuality should have been, and was, decriminalised (I think it;s a personal freedon issue, but that is my belief and I don't state it as a fact). Why lobby for the same  legal rights of a heterosexual marriage which were largely forulated for the protection of children anyway? 2 men cannot procreate and 2 women cannot procreate, so the protection of familial children appears not to be the reason.

 

Straying off topic perhaps?.

 

 

1) because not allowing such marriages means those couple have less rights, they should have equal rights  Things like being allowed at your partner's sick bed in case of sickness and hospitalization is just one example of the rights I am talking about

 

2) History changes, woman weren't Always allowed to vote either, yet I see you not making an argument that women should not be allowed to vote, why would this be any different. The tide is turning that is all I can see, and I am very glad about it. Time for Thailand to follow suit. 

 

3) in a marriage between person A and person B, complete strangers are never a stakeholder. They simply do not enter into the picture. And again, a marriage is not just about protection of chidren, it is much more, one example already stated in 1, but I am sure you can think of many others. 

[KiwiKiwi]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

1) because not allowing such marriages means those couple have less rights, they should have equal rights  Things like being allowed at your partner's sick bed in case of sickness and hospitalization is just one example of the rights I am talking about

 

2) History changes, woman weren't Always allowed to vote either, yet I see you not making an argument that women should not be allowed to vote, why would this be any different. The tide is turning that is all I can see, and I am very glad about it. Time for Thailand to follow suit. 

 

3) in a marriage between person A and person B, complete strangers are never a stakeholder. They simply do not enter into the picture. And again, a marriage is not just about protection of chidren, it is much more, one example already stated in 1, but I am sure you can think of many others. 

 

'they should have equal rights'

 

Why?

[attrayant]

4 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

'they should have equal rights'

 

Why?

 

Really?  Wow.

 

Just... wow.

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

'they should have equal rights'

 

Why?

Why not ?

 

Dying to hear the reasoning for that one ! It id evident why people should have equal rights. This must be the most stupid question of the month so far. 

[Jingthing]

I will add something else about married same sex couples having children. 

 

Many of them ALREADY have children! Especially lesbians. Sometimes gay men do as well for example from previous relationships with women, or becoming a legal parent toa child from a relative that has died, etc.

 

When they get married it is a benefit for the children to have two legal parents. 

 

Then there is surrogacy and adoption.

 

Commercial surrogacy isn't even legal in most of the world!

When it is, gay men may travel for it if it is legal for gay men to be surrogates but last time I checked such nations are very rare. I think it is legal in the U.S. though but very expensive.

 

Adoption rules and laws don't necessarily gel with legalizing same sex marriages including parental rights. The specific adoption agency in question or the jurisdiction they are located in may still block (or heavily discriminate against) same sex and/or single parent adoptions.

 

Sure they may in some cases be subject to legal challenges for discrimination but again parental rights for same sex married people is most critically important when their children already exist and/or are rather easily brought into existence in the case of lesbians.

 

Cheers. 

 

[KiwiKiwi]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Why not ?

 

Dying to hear the reasoning for that one ! It id evident why people should have equal rights. This must be the most stupid question of the month so far. 

But useful enough for you not to answer the question friend. Anyway, I don't see the usefulness of insults, they generally ensue when reasoning power is insufficient, so I will wish you well and suggest we both move on.

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

But useful enough for you not to answer the question friend. Anyway, I don't see the usefulness of insults, they generally ensue when reasoning power is insufficient, so I will wish you well and suggest we both move on.

What insult ? Now again, dying to hear your reasoning why gay people should be withheld rights that are enjoyed by straight people. 

 

I guess the only reason in this case is your own ignorance and homophobia. 

 

But I guess that will be filed under insufficient 'reasoning power",  what utter <deleted>. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by sjaak327

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Really?  Wow.

 

Just... wow.

That's the core of this.

Anti-gay bigots still live in a world where not treating LGBTQ with EQUAL civil rights is normal and even acceptable to favor in polite company.

You can't do that anymore in regard to RACIAL minorities.

Hopefully, over time, in more and more countries acting like not treating LGBTQ people equally under the law is OK will be as shameful and socially unacceptable as trying to rationalize racist bigotry.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Jingthing

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

But useful enough for you not to answer the question

 

Some questions don't deserve answers.  Basic human rights, such as equality, are inalienable.  For you to ask why people should have equal rights is just unbelievable.  No one needs to justify their existence to you.

[KiwiKiwi]

6 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

What insult ? Now again, dying to hear your reasoning why gay people should be withheld rights that are enjoyed by straight people. 

 

I guess the only reason in this case is your own ignorance and homophobia. 

 

But I guess that will be filed under insufficient 'reasoning power",  what utter <deleted>. 

Sorry friend, you've exceeded the acceptable insult threshold, but you're a very welcome addition to my ignore list. Good luck, have a nice day.

[KiwiKiwi]

On 5/5/2018 at 4:36 PM, fvw53 said:

Consulting adults can do behind doors whatever they want ...but do not let them adopt children..

I cannot imagine to go to an open door day at school with my two fathers or two mothers...but of course I am old fashioned

Well I agree with you fwiw. So I must be old-fashioned as well <sigh>.

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Sorry friend, you've exceeded the acceptable insult threshold, but you're a very welcome addition to my ignore list. Good luck, have a nice day.

 

I suspect that's where I am too, since you haven't replied to any of my posts since much earlier in this discussion where you found some of my questions to be a little too challenging.  At this rate, you're going to be awfully lonely here.

[Chris Lawrence]

3 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Well I agree with you fwiw. So I must be old-fashioned as well <sigh>.

What would you say to your Dad  coming home with a ladyboy and said Kiwi my old fruit meet your step mum. Or your Mum or your brother or sister. What would you say to one of your close relatives coming home, Kiwi we met in the shearing sheds and u know what wide combs can do for you, will the next minute we were at Broke Back Mountain style. Would you still love them unconditionally? Or would they never be able to babysit your kids again.

 

I took my kids to a gay wedding. My oldest who was abt 12 at the time said 'where are we going Dad, I said Pete and Howards wedding'. My son stated the obvious, 'they are two boys' I just said its OK'. His younger brother said there gay. My oldest is now 35, Downs Syndrome, and can't wait till his married. My other son is in a steady relationship with a nice young female.

 

The Gayness never rubbed off or of any of the other kids at the ceremony.

 

Its not what is seen its what is inside.

 

My Gay friend an ex-Russian Tank Driver who also worked as a mercenary in  the Congo with the Spanish Foreign Legion . suffered PTSS said "Chris the easy ones to get into bed are the ones that have higher objections. So my old Kiwi fruit, would you bat for the other side and become a fruit.

 

Your in the nature nurture debate arena and I am not sure your rhetoric is convincing. You see your not old fashioned but appear to be trying to hide a chink in your armour that most can see thru.

[KiwiKiwi]

11 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

What would you say to your Dad  coming home with a ladyboy and said Kiwi my old fruit meet your step mum. Or your Mum or your brother or sister. What would you say to one of your close relatives coming home, Kiwi we met in the shearing sheds and u know what wide combs can do for you, will the next minute we were at Broke Back Mountain style. Would you still love them unconditionally? Or would they never be able to babysit your kids again.

 

I took my kids to a gay wedding. My oldest who was abt 12 at the time said 'where are we going Dad, I said Pete and Howards wedding'. My son stated the obvious, 'they are two boys' I just said its OK'. His younger brother said there gay. My oldest is now 35, Downs Syndrome, and can't wait till his married. My other son is in a steady relationship with a nice young female.

 

The Gayness never rubbed off or of any of the other kids at the ceremony.

 

Its not what is seen its what is inside.

 

My Gay friend an ex-Russian Tank Driver who also worked as a mercenary in  the Congo with the Spanish Foreign Legion . suffered PTSS said "Chris the easy ones to get into bed are the ones that have higher objections. So my old Kiwi fruit, would you bat for the other side and become a fruit.

 

Your in the nature nurture debate arena and I am not sure your rhetoric is convincing. You see your not old fashioned but appear to be trying to hide a chink in your armour that most can see thru.

Pretty wide of the mark Chris, in fact very wide of the mark. But that's OK. Sorry about the Downs Syndrome, must have been difficult, though It wouldn't affect how I feel about any of my stepchildren and I should imagine you've always been the same..

[greenchair]

15 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Hmm, maybe you should mind your own business, a gay life is not difficult, it is only in your little mind. Live and let live is the prashe here. 

Well it's a story posted on a chat site explicitely for people to express their views. So, it is my business and I have contributed my views which may not be the same as yours. Unfortunately or fortunately  nobody knows your views, because you chose to criticise rather than contribute. I have never made criticisms of gay people and of course live and let live. However, this chat is about marriage verse civil union, so that's what I talk about. We all meet many gays that have different opinions. 

The ones I have met say they would not want their son to be gay and given their choices if they could choose, would not choose it. That's my friends though 

[sjaak327]

You too, I haven't insulted you of course. If you post rubbish, rubbish is being called out, nothing more and nothing less....

Sorry friend, you've exceeded the acceptable insult threshold, but you're a very welcome addition to my ignore list. Good luck, have a nice day.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[sjaak327]

Well it's a story posted on a chat site explicitely for people to express their views. So, it is my business and I have contributed my views which may not be the same as yours. Unfortunately or fortunately  nobody knows your views, because you chose to criticise rather than contribute. I have never made criticisms of gay people and of course live and let live. However, this chat is about marriage verse civil union, so that's what I talk about. We all meet many gays that have different opinions. 
The ones I have met say they would not want their son to be gay and given their choices if they could choose, would not choose it. That's my friends though 

I am sure my views on the matter are perfectly clear, surprised you didn't catch on to them. And no, what adults do in their sex life is none of your business.

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[stephen tracy]

10 minutes ago, greenchair said:

Well it's a story posted on a chat site explicitely for people to express their views. So, it is my business and I have contributed my views which may not be the same as yours. Unfortunately or fortunately  nobody knows your views, because you chose to criticise rather than contribute. I have never made criticisms of gay people and of course live and let live. However, this chat is about marriage verse civil union, so that's what I talk about. We all meet many gays that have different opinions. 

The ones I have met say they would not want their son to be gay and given their choices if they could choose, would not choose it. That's my friends though 

You don't have any gay friends. And yes, you do criticize the gay community by telling them they should not be allowed to raise children. In fact that is far worse than criticism. That is telling others what they should and shouldn't do based on your own narrow-minded views. How would you like it if people said narrow-minded individuals should not be allowed to raise children? I don't think you'd be too pleased. 

[attrayant]

This whole glorification of the nuclear family is such a silly rationale for denying same-sex couples from raising children.  There are so many other kinds of family structures that exist today.  How can we single out one of them and objectively state that it must be limited in its rights?

 

What about disabled parents?  How can a wheelchair bound father properly play football with his son? Or a mother with parkinson's pass along the family quilt to her daughter if she can't teach her how to sew?  Surely children of disabled parents are at some developmental disadvantage since their parents can't interact with them in the traditional or "normal" way.  Shall we then make laws that say disabled people can't be allowed to raise children?

 

How about the poor?  Surely their children are disadvantaged in a huge way.  Should we sterilize poor people to make sure they don't raise children in squalor?

 

If you're going to employ the "won't somebody think of the children!?" argument, then you need to be consistent and apply it to any situation where a child might not grow up in a "normal" household.  But if you single out same-sex households only, then you're not really thinking of the children.  You're thinking of yourself and how icky the whole things feels to you.

[Eligius]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

This whole glorification of the nuclear family is such a silly rationale for denying same-sex couples from raising children.  There are so many other kinds of family structures that exist today.  How can we single out one of them and objectively state that it must be limited in its rights?

 

What about disabled parents?  How can a wheelchair bound father properly play football with his son? Or a mother with parkinson's pass along the family quilt to her daughter if she can't teach her how to sew?  Surely children of disabled parents are at some developmental disadvantage since their parents can't interact with them in the traditional or "normal" way.  Shall we then make laws that say disabled people can't be allowed to raise children?

 

How about the poor?  Surely their children are disadvantaged in a huge way.  Should we sterilize poor people to make sure they don't raise children in squalor?

 

If you're going to employ the "won't somebody think of the children!?" argument, then you need to be consistent and apply it to any situation where a child might not grow up in a "normal" household.  But if you single out same-sex households only, then you're not really thinking of the children.  You're thinking of yourself and how icky the whole things feels to you.

Brilliant post, Attrayant. Yes, if we want to ban gays from rearing children, then what about banning the following groups, who might cause their children to suffer in some way:

 

1) Disabled people (as Attrayant says)

2) Mixed-race couples (think of all the name-calling the children might attract!)

3) Short people (who might have short children - on the other hand, the 'short' gene might be recessive and the children might turn out tall!)

4) Very tall people (the children might turn out unusually tall and be ridiculed for it - so ban all tall people from reproducing)

5) People with skin blemishes (they might pass that on to their children - let's ban any but the most gorgeously smooth-skinned people from having children ...)

6) Conservatives or Republicans in mainly Labour or Democrat areas (think of the abuse the children will be subject to!)

7) Labour or Democrat supporters in mainly Conservative / Republican areas of the country (ditto as above)

8) Supporters of Prayut and his junta - well, there there really are good grounds for banning any procreation - when you think how the general mass of the Thai populace might despise the offspring of junta lovers ...!

[KiwiKiwi]

45 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

You don't have any gay friends. And yes, you do criticize the gay community by telling them they should not be allowed to raise children. In fact that is far worse than criticism. That is telling others what they should and shouldn't do based on your own narrow-minded views. How would you like it if people said narrow-minded individuals should not be allowed to raise children? I don't think you'd be too pleased. 

Well, to be fair, Stephen, and as you have acknowledged, it is a forum in which comment and opinion are invited. To take the heat out would be a good idea, so... if this thread were about footballers, someone would not have to have footballer friends in order to make a valid comment or have a valid opinion. Room for all surely?. It's also not necessary to be intimately familiar with the activities of footballers in order to have a lack of empathy, or even hostility towards footballers.

 

And I strongly suspect that most support or tolerance for footballers is largely based on not having a close proximity to the game of football or satisfying themselves that the close proximity of the footballing lifestyle is not something they should worry about.. I can't demonstrate this, but I was in Australia during the i960's and 70's, and again during he 1980's. The active hostility demonstrated towards footballers in personal conversations was pretty consistent and apperently unrelated to legislation passed in the interregnum. This and similar situations in the UK, leads me to believe that tolerance of and support for footballers has more to do with a perception of what enlightenment means today, than it does any form of genuine tolerance and belief in personal choices.

 

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but, setting aside what we might want to believe for a moment, people are generally not to be trusted to express opinions if there is any law or social convention that may bring them into scorn or ridicule. Most people care about social inclusion. I personally don't give a damn, but most people do, and honesty in the face of the possibility of social exclusion for having non-politically-correct views, is a very rare occurrence.

 

Things are not always as clear-cut as our own preferences might suggest. For this reason, I predict that the whole 'live and let live' culture we find ourselves in a a result of intensive lobbying by a community with vested interests, will pass as the cycle of social trends comes full circle. As history suggests it surely will. As they say, make hay while the sun shines (because tomorrow it will likely rain).

 

You might infer from this opinion and others, that my faith in human nature is not large and that people will generally only do or say what they bellieve to be in their own best interests, rather than a true reflection of their beliefs and mores. If so, you would be right. I could explain why this is so and why I have come to the qualified conclusions I have, but I'm not going to - I don't feel the need or perceive the likely benefit..

Edited May 7, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[stephen tracy]

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Well, to be fair, Stephen, it is a forum in which comment and opinion are invited. To take the heat out would be a good idea, so... if this thread were about footballers, someone would not have to have footballer friends in order to make a valid comment or have a valid opinion. Room for all surely?. It's also not necessary to be intimately familiar with the activities of footballers in order to have a lack of empathy, or even hostility towards footballers.

 

And I strongly suspect that most support or tolerance for footballers is largely based on not having a close proximity to the game of football or satisfying themselves that the close proximity of the footballing lifestyle is not something they should worry about.. I can't demonstrate this, but I was in Australia during the i960's and 70's, and again during he 1980's. The active hostility demonstrated towards footballers in personal conversations was pretty consistent and apperently unrelated to legislation passed in the interregnum. This and similar situations in the UK, leads me to believe that tolerance of and support for footballers has more to do with a perception of what enlightenment means today, than it does any form of genuine tolerance and belief in personal choices.

 

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but, setting aside what we might want to believe for a moment, people are generally not to be trusted to express opinions if there is any law or social convention that may bring them into scorn or ridicule. Most people care about social inclusion. I personally don't give a damn, but most people do, and honesty in the face of the possibility of social exclusion for having non-politically-correct views, is a very rare occurrence.

 

Things are not always as clear-cut as our own preferences might suggest. For this reason, I predict that the whole 'live and let live' culture we find ourselves in a a result of intensive lobbying by a community with vested interests, will pass as the cycle of social trends comes full circle. As history suggests it surely will.

"Well, to be fair, Stephen, it is a forum in which comment and opinion are invited": So I commented. And expressed my opinion that he doesn't have any gay friends, as he claimed. 

[KiwiKiwi]

7 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

"Well, to be fair, Stephen, it is a forum in which comment and opinion are invited": So I commented. And expressed my opinion that he doesn't have any gay friends, as he claimed. 

Indeed, and I was commenting that your comment is both fair and reasonable for that reason. Provided personal abuse and insults do not appear (as they often do), then all comment is surely valid on one scale or another.

Edited May 7, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

How can a wheelchair bound father properly play football with his son?

could try cricket

a gentleman's game

[AGareth2]

1 hour ago, stephen tracy said:

And expressed my opinion that he doesn't have any gay friends, as he claimed

that is calling him a liar

abuse

[attrayant]

If that's abuse, maybe the Internet isn't the right place for you (or whomever felt 'abused' by that statement).  I'd call it speculation, since it's presumably based on the recipient's posting history. Perhaps it could have been worded more gently ("you don't seem like a person who would have any gay friends"), but hey, I thought we're all supposed to be so sick to death of being politically correct these days?

 

A tempest in a teapot, really.

[stephen tracy]

31 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

that is calling him a liar

abuse

I called it like I saw it. 

[Monomial]

2 hours ago, Eligius said:

Brilliant post, Attrayant. Yes, if we want to ban gays from rearing children, then what about banning the following groups, who might cause their children to suffer in some way:

 

1) Disabled people (as Attrayant says)

2) Mixed-race couples (think of all the name-calling the children might attract!)

3) Short people (who might have short children - on the other hand, the 'short' gene might be recessive and the children might turn out tall!)

4) Very tall people (the children might turn out unusually tall and be ridiculed for it - so ban all tall people from reproducing)

5) People with skin blemishes (they might pass that on to their children - let's ban any but the most gorgeously smooth-skinned people from having children ...)

6) Conservatives or Republicans in mainly Labour or Democrat areas (think of the abuse the children will be subject to!)

7) Labour or Democrat supporters in mainly Conservative / Republican areas of the country (ditto as above)

8) Supporters of Prayut and his junta - well, there there really are good grounds for banning any procreation - when you think how the general mass of the Thai populace might despise the offspring of junta lovers ...!

 

While I find this an interesting argument, it should be made clear that absolutely nobody has ever said a homosexual couple can not raise a child. That is a specious argument that you are throwing in to try and reframe the discussion. The issue under discussion is whether or not adoption and surrogacy should be extended to homosexual couples. In the event a homosexual couple can acquire a child through natural means, absolutely nobody is saying they do not have the same rights as everyone else to raise the child.

 

This is strictly about whether or not extraordinary means via social institutions should be extended to homosexual couples, and whether or not this a right everyone deserves. Non married people are already denied this right, so there is no fundamental reason why homosexuals couples are being persecuted by this rule. Furthermore, in the case of adoption, the couples background is extensively investigated, and adoption is denied in the case of an unfit home. For surrogacy, heterosexual married couples where the woman is infertile are denied surrogacy options in the case where no female blood relatives are available.

 

There are many, many cases where these social institutions are denied to any number of people and it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference, so it seems to me this does represent a specific case of discrimination, but rather a more nuanced set of rules dictated by social norms.

 

I can appreciate that everyone wants this option, but so far, nobody has made a valid argument why homosexual couples should be entitled to adopt children when entire groups of others are denied this chance. The problem is this has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with considering the needs of the child. And in this case, society currently takes the most conservative view of what makes the optimal home for a child.  It is not personal and in my opinion not discriminatory.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Of course it has lots to do with discrimination.

Let's break this down with an example.

An adopted child allowed to a marginal heterosexual couple just because of their genders and denied to a gay people that can offer a wonderful home just because of their genders. 

But adoption policies are really tangential to the main issue -- MARRIAGE EQUALITY. 

As far as single people wanting to adopt, policies on that depend on the policies of specific adoption agencies. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Jingthing