Muslim leaders in the Thai South oppose LGBT partner bill

[webfact]

Muslim leaders oppose LGBT partner bill

By PIYANUCH THAMNUKASETCHAI 
THE NATION

 

A couple of activists hold their hands during the 15th LGBTI March with the slogan "Memory, Pride and Resistance for LGBTI persons rights" in Asuncion, on September 29, 2018. // AFP PHOTO

 

MUSLIM LEADERS in the South have rejected the Life Partnership Bill, which would allow LGBT couples to marry.

 

If the bill becomes law, the religious leaders say they will not perform marriage rituals for LGBT couples. No religious leader is required to perform rituals under the proposed law. 

 

Islam does not allow people of the same sex to have sexual relations. Thailand’s neighbour Malaysia, for example, considers sodomy a crime. Malay Muslims are the majority in the Thai South.

 

“Only in the South has our public forum on the Life Partnership Bill heard opposition,” Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom, who heads the Rights and Liberties Protection Department’s International Human Rights Division, said yesterday.

 

Her department has held public forums on the bill in all regions of the Kingdom, which has the highest percentage of Buddhists at 93 per cent.

Nareeluc said the forum for the southern region took place on November 15 in Songkhla province, with local religious leaders and LGBT members from other regions among the 136 participants.

 

“Muslim leaders do not agree with the bill. They are worried about its content because they think it runs against their religion,” Nareeluc said. 

 

She said her department had explained to Muslim leaders that the bill would not force anyone to register a same-sex marriage. 

“Most participants at our forums have supported the bill,” she said. 

 

Her department has also gathered public opinions on the bill via its website, with most comments supporting the bill. A total of 3,055 people commented on the bill through the online platform. “We are now processing data we have gathered. After we integrate it into the bill, we will submit it to Deputy PM and Justice Minister ACM Prajin Juntong,” Nareeluc said. 

 

Many comments have emphasised that the bill should also allow LGBT couples to adopt children. 

 

Nareeluc expected the bill to reach Prajin before the end of this month. 

 

“He will then forward it to the Cabinet,” she said. 

 

If the Cabinet gives the green light, the bill will go the National Legislative Assembly.

 

The mammoth Life Partnership Bill – it has no fewer than 70 sections – allows gender-diverse couples many of the same rights recognised for heterosexual partners, including inheritance and marital property matters, as well as the legal right to make medical decisions for a partner who is incapacitated.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30359128

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-11-23

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, webfact said:

If the bill becomes law, the religious leaders say they will not perform marriage rituals for LGBT couples. No religious leader is required to perform rituals under the proposed law.

 They will not perform a service that is not required.It is that type of thinking that keeps them in the stone ages.

  News to them, time to come out of the cave, it is nice and sunny out here!

[YetAnother]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

MUSLIM LEADERS in the South have rejected the Life Partnership Bill

so what ; i reject muslim leaders

[holy cow cm]

Oh, the good ole Muslims don’t like it. Ok scrap it then!

[keith101]

Just as well this is a Buddhist country and not Muslim which means the Thai Government decides which laws are introduced and not them . They have the right on religious grounds not to adhere to the law so what are they worried about unless they can choose to be who they really are as a person and gender . 

[Oxx]

Typical narrow minded, religious intolerance.

 

Gay marriage takes nothing away from from straight people.

[DoctorG]

Cannot be a surprise to anyone that the Muslim South rejects this.

[AhFarangJa]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Islam does not allow people of the same sex to have sexual relations

Islam, along with many other religions, does not allow a myriad of things, it does not stop the hypocrites from indulging in them though.

[zzidenn]

Sexual orientation doesn’t line up with religion, feeling sorry for all the lgtbq Muslims and the shame they have to endure

[Greyhat]

If they can reject it without blowing things up I don't see the problem, who other than Muslims would want their marriage rituals performed by an Imam anyway?

[connda]

I can just imagine the cognitive dissonance this will create in some of the more progressive circles:  One one hand, slamming the Muslim community for not accepting the LGBT Partner Bill will be labelled as Islamophobic; on the other hand, you have an entire community that is religiously and socially opposed to all things LGBT which will be labelled homophobic. 

"What to do, what to do..." ????  Quite the conundrum!

[kannot]

5 hours ago, YetAnother said:

so what ; i reject muslim leaders

i reject ALL leaders, always incredible to see religious CRAP which Im supposed to "respect", well stuff that, you wanna believe in fairy tales with absolutely  ZERO evidence then  youre NUTS, and dont  impose your loony ideas on anyone else.

Zero respect for anything without evidence.

[kannot]

11 minutes ago, connda said:

I can just imagine the cognitive dissonance this will create in some of the more progressive circles:  One one hand, slamming the Muslim community for not accepting the LGBT Partner Bill will be labelled as Islamophobic; on the other hand, you have an entire community that is religiously and socially opposed to all things LGBT which will be labelled homophobic. 

"What to do, what to do..." ????  Quite the conundrum!

could all be resolved if people stopped "believing" with no  credible evidence.

Like  bloody jehovas coming to my door and i say wheres  your proof, they answer "whats all this around you" crappest response ever.

[robblok]

 They will not perform a service that is not required.It is that type of thinking that keeps them in the stone ages.
  News to them, time to come out of the cave, it is nice and sunny out here!

I am pro LGB but i dont see the point in forcing Muslims or Christians to marry same sex partners.

A civil marriage should be sufficient as freedom of religion also means not forcing religious leaders to go against their religion.

Im an atheist and not pro religion.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

Islam, along with many other religions, does not allow a myriad of things, it does not stop the hypocrites from indulging in them though.

I'll drink to that.

[sammieuk1]

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

 They will not perform a service that is not required.It is that type of thinking that keeps them in the stone ages.

  News to them, time to come out of the cave, it is nice and sunny out here!

Surely its where the sun don't shine that's the Muslim leaders problem????

[248900_1469958220]

Its pretty simple. Can the candidate fulfill ALL the requirements of the job in this case 'physically'

....and that DOES NOT mean lowering the bar on physical testing for the sake of 'diversity' as seems to have happened. I dont care if its a woman that drags me out of a burning building or a man....but she better be able to do it to the same level......man, woman,ladyboy....whatever! Work opportunities  should be based purely on merit NOT on diversity quotas.

[Small Joke]

Return tbe South. Who needs the headache?

[Jingthing]

Of course they oppose it. So what? They are a minority that the state allows full marriage rights for the heterosexuals among them. They have the nerve to oppose a lesser type of marriage for another minority. They have their say. Then IGNORE them. 

 

I would be much more concerned about Buddhist leaders opposing this because of course this is a very Buddhist nation and if they strongly oppose it, it ain't gonna happen. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jingthing

[Krataiboy]

46 minutes ago, DM07 said:

They deny gays the rights to wedding-cakes, they shoot up synagogues, they harass and kill abortion doctors and women who had abortions and burn down their clinics (if they not simply shut them down, by law!), they make a big boohoo over mosques, opening "near" Groudn Zero (or any other place, for that matter!), they "attend" soldiers - funerals with "God hates fags"- posters, they deny their kids vaccinations because of "God" or argue against climate change, because "God", they travel to Uganda, to fight against gays, they are against the use of condoms, to fight the AIDS- epedemic in Africa, because life obviously begins at a wet dream...

Except for the "flying planes into buildings"- part...I see a bunch of similarities!

 

All the BS, that happens in the name of any religion is backwards and evil!

ALL- OF- IT!

Not all of it. The world's most advanced societies are those which have by and large embraced Judeo-Christian values. Unless one is a cultural relativist, I would have thought an argument could at least be made that these are preferable to those of an atrophied Islam - particularly since the resurgence of the fundamentalist variety of this ideology which is generating such a clash of cultures worldwide.

 

Christian religions have adapted and changed over time to meet the constantly evolving needs of society. Islam, on the other hand, has shown itself far more resistant to change, a reality which has ended the globalist dream of inflicting multiculturalism in Western European countries with substantial and rapidly-growing Muslim minorities.

 

Religious fundamentalism of the kind you describe needs to be opposed wherever it raises its intolerant head.

 

Would we actually be better off without any religions? Possibly, but history has some pretty scary examples of what can happen to societies which abandon long-established belief systems. Not many of us Westerners, I suspect, would have preferred life in the former Soviet Union, Cambodia under Pol Pot,  Mao's China - not to mention the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Krataiboy

[metisdead]

Off topic trolling posts and the replies have been reported and removed. 

 

A post commenting on moderation has been removed.  The proper method of reporting a post is to use the Report button rather than making a post commenting on the off topic post. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by metisdead

[seahorse]

Why shouldn't gays suffer as much as heterosexuals? 

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

I am pro LGB but i dont see the point in forcing Muslims or Christians to marry same sex partners.

A civil marriage should be sufficient as freedom of religion also means not forcing religious leaders to go against their religion.

Im an atheist and not pro religion.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

 no one is forcing anyone to marry  anyone. you need to re-read the OP. 

 

12 hours ago, webfact said:

She said her department had explained to Muslim leaders that the bill would not force anyone to register a same-sex marriage

 

12 hours ago, webfact said:

The mammoth Life Partnership Bill – it has no fewer than 70 sections – allows gender-diverse couples many of the same rights recognised for heterosexual partners, including inheritance and marital property matters, as well as the legal right to make medical decisions for a partner who is incapacitated.

 

[Phuket Stan]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

. 

 

 

2 hours ago, oldrunner said:

Replace LGBT with Lambs; Goats; Babys & Teens....no problem now.

 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Oh, very naughty. 

But so true 

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 no one is forcing anyone to marry  anyone. you need to re-read the OP. 

 

 

 

i got that but thought that you wanted them to do that and bashed them for not doing it. I must have misunderstood you.

[sirineou]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

i got that but thought that you wanted them to do that and bashed them for not doing it. I must have misunderstood you.

 No worries my friend.

communications on a written forum such as this , where  so many aspect of communications such as body language, voice tone, facial expressions etc are absent , is difficult ,and misunderstandings are often made. often by me also , and by others I am sure.

I am a  "live and let live" kind of person, As long as what anyone does not compromise my life  i don't care what they do . 

All marriages in most civilised  countries are civil unions ,  only countries struggling to come out of the stone ages force religion upon their subjects.  

I don't even see why there needs to be a sexual component to a civil union, any two people who wish to live together such as two heterosexual friends , who would like to live together and be able to manage each others affairs should be allowed to do so.

   I have a very good friend that I have being friends with since high school , we are like brothers, If I was not married, and he was not married I am sure we will be living together, why should we not be able to manage each others affairs if one of as got incapacitated, in the same manner and with the same protections as any other couple? 

[Bang Bang]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 I have a very good friend that I have being friends with since high school , we are like brothers, If I was not married, and he was not married I am sure we will be living together, why should we not be able to manage each others affairs if one of as got incapacitated, in the same manner and with the same protections as any other couple? 

Hmm, very interesting. Never thought of this before. I too have childhood friends, male as I am, with whom I share everything. 

 

I live alone here in Bkk but could conceive of being roommates (couple?) with one or more of these buddies of 30+ years. Oddly, enough we would probably end up going out mongering together every other night and banging babes in adjacent short-time rooms. But, like they say, a couple that mongers together stays together.

 

But jokes apart, the point you make of "couplehood" being based on love or call it what you will that is not necessarily sexual, is well taken.

[chainarong]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion , however when it comes to religion one could say that it has done enough damage over the thousand of years its been around, anything they have to say on any matter should be taken as purely for selfish reasons and or control and should be ignored.

Edited November 23, 2018 by chainarong

[Brigand]

Islam/Muslim culture bans alcohol but it does stop thousands of Muslim men crossing the border every week to Thailand's southern provinces to have a good time and screw some girls...serious hypocrites.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Brigand said:

Islam/Muslim culture bans alcohol but it does stop thousands of Muslim men crossing the border every week to Thailand's southern provinces to have a good time and screw some girls...serious hypocrites.

Hypocrisy, you say? Well, that's not about Muslims specifically. That's about humans. That just got me thinking. Is it possible for a dog to be a hypocrite? Maybe a dog because they are so close to us, but how about a snake?

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jingthing