8 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

 

Better if everyone could????

Easy. You only need 800K baht in a Thai bank account. Sorry if out of topic, but I assumed you wanted the information.

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sure thing, dude. After all, societies allowing minority groups semi-equal civil rights is such a horrible thing.

No it’s not horrible it’s justice.

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sure thing, dude. After all, societies allowing minority groups semi-equal civil rights is such a horrible thing.

Yeah, sure it is. Just think about what happens if a minority in the elected government in a democratic state would be accepted as the top decision maker, and the majority has to bow in to their decision. It just doesn´t have that touch of reality, does it?

2 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Yeah, sure it is. Just think about what happens if a minority in the elected government in a democratic state would be accepted as the top decision maker, and the majority has to bow in to their decision. It just doesn´t have that touch of reality, does it?

Your post is really too BIZARRE to reply to. But it does say an awful lot about YOU.

if this equates to marriage

then a male partner might be able to get Thai nationality

Quite a reasonably good-sized stride forward, I think. Not perfection for those obsessed with the word 'marriage' but an important improvement for all of us in our daily lives: formal recognition of our relationships + huge practical advantages as those above have mentioned.

9 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Quite a reasonably good-sized stride forward, I think. Not perfection for those obsessed with the word 'marriage' but an important improvement for all of us in our daily lives: formal recognition of our relationships + huge practical advantages as those above have mentioned.

Indeed

26 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

if this equates to marriage

then a male partner might be able to get Thai nationality

It may not extend that far

36 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Your post is really too BIZARRE to reply to. But it does say an awful lot about YOU.

Thanks! I am also very proud of myself and my sexual stance in life.

45 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Easy. You only need 800K baht in a Thai bank account. Sorry if out of topic, but I assumed you wanted the information.

Won’t you marry your guy and be happy?

5 hours ago, HappyAndRich said:

just do not bring this on innocent children that needs a genuine mother and father

All a child needs is to grow up in a loving enviroment,two fathers,two mothers or one of each it is all the same.

Too bad you can not accept that.so you maybe happy and rich but you are also a shortsighted person.

Horrible idea.

There, I said it - boo

 

Civil partnership, same rights perhaps. Only Thai nationals.

 

Sangkha never gonna go for this nor should they.

Edited November 6, 20187 yr by ozmeldo

11 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Won’t you marry your guy and be happy?

Sorry, I don´t marry guys.

3 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Sorry, I don´t marry guys.

 

3 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Sorry, I don´t marry guys.

See the two guys in my link had commitment to their partners. Just becausse you don’t as wont marry him do you think that’s a little sad?

4 minutes ago, jvs said:

All a child needs is to grow up in a loving enviroment,two fathers,two mothers or one of each it is all the same.

Too bad you can not accept that.so you maybe happy and rich but you are also a shortsighted person.

No, I am not shortsighted. So, you are telling me that the best for a child is not to be able to grow up in a natural environment with their biological mother and father. Why in the world has that combination been the most protected through all times then? Do you think that was just because the world have so many shortsighted persons and you are the guiding light of knowledge?

2 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

 

See the two guys in my link had commitment to their partners. Just becausse you don’t as wont marry him do you think that’s a little sad?

Why would I be sad over that? Just don´t give them the same rights to adopt children. That due to that a combination of two of the same sex, can´t produce children by themselfs even at a health and normal stage in life. That clearly means, it was not meant to be.

21 minutes ago, jvs said:

All a child needs is to grow up in a loving enviroment,two fathers,two mothers or one of each it is all the same.

Too bad you can not accept that.so you maybe happy and rich but you are also a shortsighted person.

do you have a scientific link for that

or just your opinion

15 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

No, I am not shortsighted. So, you are telling me that the best for a child is not to be able to grow up in a natural environment with their biological mother and father. Why in the world has that combination been the most protected through all times then? Do you think that was just because the world have so many shortsighted persons and you are the guiding light of knowledge?

Wooow there horse! No children can grow up in many family environments, love is more important than gender lots of kids get emotionally wrecked by lack of love between parents Hetro or gay.

 

but your allowed your views and to air them so no great conspiracy.

5 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Wooow there horse! No children can grow up in many family environments, love is more important than gender lots of kids get emotionally wrecked by lack of love between parents Hetro or gay.

 

but your allowed your views and to air them so no great conspiracy.

As I said. The self appointed light of guidance, with no proof whatsoever of the things you talk about.

7 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

As I said. The self appointed light of guidance, with no proof whatsoever of the things you talk about.

And where is your prove?

 

8 minutes ago, jvs said:

And where is your prove?

 

Thanks for asking. That´s easy! Just Google "the ideal family situation for a child".

The result and answers you get there, is going to be much more than you ever can provide in the opposite direction.

If you choose to not call that proof is totally up to you. That means you say that you are right and they are wrong. And again we have the minority trying to stand up against the majority.

Horrible idea.
There, I said it - boo
 
Civil partnership, same rights perhaps. Only Thai nationals.
 
Sangkha never gonna go for this nor should they.

Not the same rights. Read the OP.

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

Thanks for asking. That´s easy! Just Google "the ideal family situation for a child".

The result and answers you get there, is going to be much more than you ever can provide in the opposite direction.

If you choose to not call that proof is totally up to you. That means you say that you are right and they are wrong. And again we have the minority trying to stand up against the majority.

They aren't including adoption rights.

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

It is the name "mariedge" that seems to invoc  religious and social reactions.

 IMO  The word marriage  should be dropped from the official lexicon for everyone, and replaced with civil union.

Different segments of the population can call it whatever they want on their own , but for official purposes it should be a civil union or a Trilateral contract ( the two people entering the union and government) all parties  required to perform certain requirements as described under law. 

Such arrangement should not require a sexual component be it heterosectual, homosecrual, bysexual or what ever, but should be available to all humans of legal age and sound mind .

In addition to traditional unions, or non traditional unions with a sexua component Two platonic friends who wish to live together should be able to enjoy protections and privileges provide under the law. 

IMO such arrangement would be more fair, without the associated baggage. Eventually as people  realise that the sky did not fall ,it will become a non issue.  

Edited November 6, 20187 yr by sirineou
typo

The discussion against allowing gay marriage seems to imply the purpose of marriage is to produce a stable

environment for raising children.

 

By the same logic women pass the childbearing age or couples not desire to have children should not be allowed to get married. Men with vasasectomy should not be allowed to marry. Man too old to take care of a child should not be allowed to marry.

Mini heterosexual couples do not provide a good environment for raising children

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not the same rights. Read the OP.

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

Aside from what? Pretty close.

 

I doubt many Thai men are interested in adopting kids anyway.

 

Sure they should not extend thus to farang. Stoopid.

 

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It is the name "mariedge" that seems to invoc  religious and social reactions.

 IMO  The word marriage  should be dropped from the official lexicon for everyone, and replaced with civil union.

Different segments of the population can call it whatever they want on their own , but for official purposes it should be a civil union or a Trilateral contract ( the two people entering the union and government) all parties  required to perform certain requirements as described under law. 

Such arrangement should not require a sexual component be it heterosectual, homosecrual, bysexual or what ever, but should be available to all humans of legal age and sound mind .

In addition to traditional unions, or non traditional unions with a sexua component Two platonic friends who wish to live together should be able to enjoy protections and privileges provide under the law. 

IMO such arrangement would be more fair, without the associated baggage. Eventually as people  realise that the sky did not fall ,it will become a non issue.  

I totally agree!

 

Everyone should have civil unions and if you want to be married - go see a monk, priest, shaman, imam, rabbi or ordained drag queen dressed as a nun.

 

I couldn't care less either way, so long as they don't make it mandatory ????   

Maybe we could define marriage as it was originally intended as a virgin man and virgin women joining together to raise a family and call everything else civil union

 

A person should only be allowed to get married once and after that just call it a civil union

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It is the name "mariedge" that seems to invoc  religious and social reactions.

 IMO  The word marriage  should be dropped from the official lexicon for everyone, and replaced with civil union.

Different segments of the population can call it whatever they want on their own , but for official purposes it should be a civil union or a Trilateral contract ( the two people entering the union and government) all parties  required to perform certain requirements as described under law. 

Such arrangement should not require a sexual component be it heterosectual, homosecrual, bysexual or what ever, but should be available to all humans of legal age and sound mind .

In addition to traditional unions, or non traditional unions with a sexua component Two platonic friends who wish to live together should be able to enjoy protections and privileges provide under the law. 

IMO such arrangement would be more fair, without the associated baggage. Eventually as people  realise that the sky did not fall ,it will become a non issue.  

This coming  POTY season  If you come to your senses and elevate me to the exalted office of   poty(Poster Of the Year) 

I promise to apply all my available time, when I am not doing anything else, toward implementing the above described policy,

In addition I will bring about world peace, and end hunger (by having a big lunch later today).

 I promise you will be winning so much you will get tired of winning!!

So without much ado , I take this opportunity to toss my hat (as soon as I get one) in the ring