SURVEY: Gay Marriage--Good for Thailand or not?

[bodga]

On 7/12/2020 at 8:00 PM, RemyDog said:

belief system.

no "belief"  should  not  be  allowed, verifiable facts  is  all that matter.

[Jingthing]

26 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Nobody's "throwing dirt". The gay rights movement did argue in favour of legalising paedophilia.

 

It's just reality. Hard to accept reality for some, but reality nonetheless.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

Yes you are. 

Every classic anti gay trope in the book. 

You're not fooling anybody. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[KhunFred]

This issue does not affect me one way or the other. I can't think of a more arrogant stance than to stick your nose into someone else's sex life. If the two parties are in agreement, then it is no one's business but theirs. Very tired of the righteous injecting themselves into the lives of others,

[Matzzon]

23 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Built me a very nice farm shed and mangers

 

Yep, he told me that. He said you paid good as well. ????

[canopy]

On 7/13/2020 at 1:57 PM, Logosone said:

We know that heterosexual marriage is good for a country as a whole, because it leads to children being born who are the future taxpayers that keep systems like pensions alive.

 

Your thinking seems old fashioned. In the 21st century the last thing we need is to make incentives to prop up human population. The paradigm we are entering is advances in AI and robotics do more and more of the work rather than people. Small advances in technology are eliminating jobs by the million which is accelerating and will inevitably result in not enough jobs to go around and this jobless gap will become enormous. Various solutions to the growing population surplus are being considered such as a universal income. But the key point is a stable or increased amount of children in the 21st century is bad for the economy and by your logic the government should therefore not give preferential treatment to having children and if anything quite the opposite. But this is drifting a bit off topic.

 

Back on topic I disagree that gays or heteros should receive any preferential treatment from government for marriage. It's exclusive and other groups are left out like polygamists who have no chance of receiving the equal benefits and protections. I believe in equal rights for all, not tailoring laws to suit groups that become popular enough and leave others behind. Marital status should be none of the governments business. Furthermore the government should not define and tell us what is and is not a marriage. It should be up to the people. If someone wants to get married, great. Sanctify it anyway you want. If you want to grant persons visitation, inheritance, and so on then file a form granting them such. The government should never ask one's marital status for any purpose whatsoever. This whole business of having to tick a box for widowed, divorced, separated, single and use it to discriminate is outdated and unnecessary. But I recognize there are few people interested in freedom or want to make their own decisions but instead look to the government to make cookie cutter decisions to serve their prejudices.

 

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, canopy said:

Your thinking seems old fashioned. In the 21st century the last thing we need is to make incentives to prop up human population.

You think importing Muslim immigrants to prop up the falling western birth rates is a good idea?

 

The ugly truth being primitive people out-breed their environment, and civilised people underbreed.

Your solution, viewing the world population as a whole, will just mean the end of civilisation as we know it.

Edited July 15, 2020 by BritManToo

[checkered flag]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes you are. 

Every classic anti gay trope in the book. 

You're not fooling anybody. 

I have no problem with gays and have friends that are such. I am against special privileges though. This should be a civil rights issue where everyone has the same rights. 

Gay marriage seems  like asking for special rights.

[CMNightRider]

18 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

ah that is the first falsehood:""God created" Heard of evolution ?
 

Second: Bible, a collection of fables, tales and superstition, discrimination, sexism, misogyny. translated from ancient tongues over millennia (Accuracy very questionable)

 

 

 

Evolution you say, lol.  Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information.  The same is true for all animal, sea life, plants, and so on.  You seem to have missed the part in biology where life comes from life.  Life doesn't, cannot, and never will come from non-life.  

 

The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe along with all life came from.  About one-third of the Bible is prophesy, much of which have already come to pass.  The dead sea scrolls discovery proved the accuracy of the Bible.

 

Getting back to gay marriage, it really isn't a good idea to participate in this sort of behavior, if for no other reason God clearly expressed His displeasure in this sort of activity.  

[Saint Nick]

20 hours ago, Logosone said:

All it takes is one gay billionaire bankrolling the research. In China they're probably doing already anyway because there are no ethical constraints like in the West.

 

Can you imagine? Genetically engineered Frankenstein babies being commissioned by lesbians because they have the egomaniac demand that their children be genetically fully related to them. Having children is not enough.

 

This is not perversion science? Really?

So...they don't pay taxes, they are pedophiles and now the "lesbians" want to engineer babies in a lab!

Are there any homophobic boxes, you don't want to check?

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

So...they don't pay taxes, they are pedophiles and now the "lesbians" want to engineer babies in a lab!

Are there any homophobic boxes, you don't want to check?

Bingo.

But his style of anti gay hate speech rhetoric is particularly noxious as its covered by a veil of pseudo intellectual gobbledygook. 

[Saint Nick]

 

 

19 hours ago, Logosone said:

Nobody's "throwing dirt". The gay rights movement did argue in favour of legalising paedophilia.

 

It's just reality. Hard to accept reality for some, but reality nonetheless.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT didn't do anything like that!

Some gay people did!

That is NOT the same!

[Saint Nick]

19 hours ago, Logosone said:

Not at all. And lest anyone thinks it was just in Germany that the gay rights movements vociferously demanded the right to have sex with children this also happened in the UK.

 

Peter Tatchell published his notorious "Perverts' Charter in "Outrage!".

 

In 1996, Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 14 years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell#Age_of_consent_laws_and_Pedophile_Information_Exchange

 

Tatchell has written an obituary in The Independent for Paedophile Information Exchange founder Ian Dunn, as well as an essay for a pro-paedophile activist and Paedophile Information Exchange member Warren Middleton in the book "Betrayal of Youth (BOY)". The actor and Human Rights activist, John Connors described Tatchell as a "paedophile apologist".

 

In 1997 Tatchell wrote a letter to The Guardian, defending an academic book about "boy-love", calling the work "courageous", before writing:

 

"The positive nature of some child–adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

 

Peter Tatchell is the most prominent gay rights advocate in the UK.

Okay....some hooligans are football fans!

Are all football fans hooligans?

 

Some sick individuals argued for pedophilia to be legalized!

Some gays did!

Many heteros do!

Interesting, that you only elude on the gay- side of this matter!

 

It is almost, as if you don't care that much about heterosexual- pedophiles, who are way more numerous, than their gay- counterparts...

 

My discourse with you ends here!

 

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

... 

My discourse with you ends here!

 

Wise decision! 

[checkered flag]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Wise decision! 

It would be good if you joined him.

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, canopy said:

 

Your thinking seems old fashioned. In the 21st century the last thing we need is to make incentives to prop up human population. The paradigm we are entering is advances in AI and robotics do more and more of the work rather than people. Small advances in technology are eliminating jobs by the million which is accelerating and will inevitably result in not enough jobs to go around and this jobless gap will become enormous. Various solutions to the growing population surplus are being considered such as a universal income. But the key point is a stable or increased amount of children in the 21st century is bad for the economy and by your logic the government should therefore not give preferential treatment to having children and if anything quite the opposite. But this is drifting a bit off topic.

 

Back on topic I disagree that gays or heteros should receive any preferential treatment from government for marriage. It's exclusive and other groups are left out like polygamists who have no chance of receiving the equal benefits and protections. I believe in equal rights for all, not tailoring laws to suit groups that become popular enough and leave others behind. Marital status should be none of the governments business. Furthermore the government should not define and tell us what is and is not a marriage. It should be up to the people. If someone wants to get married, great. Sanctify it anyway you want. If you want to grant persons visitation, inheritance, and so on then file a form granting them such. The government should never ask one's marital status for any purpose whatsoever. This whole business of having to tick a box for widowed, divorced, separated, single and use it to discriminate is outdated and unnecessary. But I recognize there are few people interested in freedom or want to make their own decisions but instead look to the government to make cookie cutter decisions to serve their prejudices.

 

The notion that future taxpayers are needed to keep the pension system funded and working is actually looking at the future. Obviously your view that incentives for children are not needed is not shared by governments from Singapore to Japan to France to the US for the simple reason that most governments understand this point, that taxpayers are vital to keep the pension system, and indeed the taxation system going.

 

If you were to think your argument through to the end, no more children, or greatly reduced numbers of children, you would realise that that would mean the end of pensions, hospitals, roads, theatres, schools, because it would be impossible to pay for them. Robots, alas do not pay tax.

 

As for your notion about a universal income, it has been tried but discarded and no country has seriously introduced this for everyone. The problem remains, who would pay for it? Out of what would you finance this universal income?

 

The notion that increased numbers of children is bad for the economy is ludicrous of course, the exact opposite is the case. Children are future taxpayers. Robots can only take over in manufacturing, which is already a miniscule part of the modern economy dwarved by services. Would you like a robot lawyer? A robot accountant? A robot hairdresser? I doubt it very much. Your entire premise is just wrong.

 

You believe in equal rights for all? So do I! True equality, like the one proposed by Nietzsche:

 

"The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows therefrom, to never make the unequal equal"

 

And of course we are back to the fact that not all intra-personal relationships benefit society. Heterosexual relationships benefit society because children are born, who are future taxpayers. Pensions, schools, hospitals, theatres, roads, are all paid by taxpayers. So a homosexual marriage is not "equal" to a heterosexual marriage, and never can be (unless science makes great leaps forward). 

 

It is in fact your view that is old-fashioned everyone for themselves. However, society understands that complex systems can only be maintained a certain way, and benefit everyone as a whole. So for you to argue from the comfort of your military researched internet (ie taxpayer funded), that we should abolish society as we know it, without offering a convincing or well thought out alternative, is frankly not convincing.

 

I would also like total freedom. However, the freedom you have ends when it encroaches on the freedom of others. And again, we do not live in an equality wonderworld. The freedoms give to one, are at the expense of another group. 

 

 

[checkered flag]

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The notion that future taxpayers are needed to keep the pension system funded and working is actually looking at the future. Obviously your view that incentives for children are not needed is not shared by governments from Singapore to Japan to France to the US for the simple reason that most governments understand this point, that taxpayers are vital to keep the pension system, and indeed the taxation system going.

 

If you were to think your argument through to the end, no more children, or greatly reduced numbers of children, you would realise that that would mean the end of pensions, hospitals, roads, theatres, schools, because it would be impossible to pay for them. Robots, alas do not pay tax.

 

As for your notion about a universal income, it has been tried but discarded and no country has seriously introduced this for everyone. The problem remains, who would pay for it? Out of what would you finance this universal income?

 

The notion that increased numbers of children is bad for the economy is ludicrous of course, the exact opposite is the case. Children are future taxpayers. Robots can only take over in manufacturing, which is already a miniscule part of the modern economy dwarved by services. Would you like a robot lawyer? A robot accountant? A robot hairdresser? I doubt it very much. Your entire premise is just wrong.

 

You believe in equal rights for all? So do I! True equality, like the one proposed by Nietzsche:

 

"The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows therefrom, to never make the unequal equal"

 

And of course we are back to the fact that not all intra-personal relationships benefit society. Heterosexual relationships benefit society because children are born, who are future taxpayers. Pensions, schools, hospitals, theatres, roads, are all paid by taxpayers. So a homosexual marriage is not "equal" to a heterosexual marriage, and never can be (unless science makes great leaps forward). 

 

It is in fact your view that is old-fashioned everyone for themselves. However, society understands that complex systems can only be maintained a certain way, and benefit everyone as a whole. So for you to argue from the comfort of your military researched internet (ie taxpayer funded), that we should abolish society as we know it, without offering a convincing or well thought out alternative, is frankly not convincing.

 

I would also like total freedom. However, the freedom you have ends when it encroaches on the freedom of others. And again, we do not live in an equality wonderworld. The freedoms give to one, are at the expense of another group. 

 

 

Sorry but this became so much for me to wade through. You might have some points but you lost me.

[Henryford]

On 7/12/2020 at 2:29 PM, Pilotman said:

Civil partnerships that are legally the equivalent to marriage, absolutely right.  'Marriage', well it depends on what you believe to be the definition of marriage.  This is a very personal view,  and in my mind its nothing to do with religion, but to me, 'marriage' is between a man and a woman, not same sex couples. This is also controversial, but I believe that adoption, and indeed parenthood,  should be restricted to married couples.  Kids need the balance of a male and female partnership to foster their own development and growth. Again, I realise that this is not a view shared by many others. 

I agree, some people say that gays should have the same rights to adopt a child. But what about the rights of the child to have a mother and father, no one seems to care about that.

[pineapple01]

Our old Labrador fell in love with Pillows.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, CMNightRider said:

Evolution you say, lol.  Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information.  The same is true for all animal, sea life, plants, and so on.  You seem to have missed the part in biology where life comes from life.  Life doesn't, cannot, and never will come from non-life.  

 

The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe along with all life came from.  About one-third of the Bible is prophesy, much of which have already come to pass.  The dead sea scrolls discovery proved the accuracy of the Bible.

 

Getting back to gay marriage, it really isn't a good idea to participate in this sort of behavior, if for no other reason God clearly expressed His displeasure in this sort of activity.  

You should be writing comedy.

There is no logic in anything you have written,.

Heard of dinosaurs and birds??

I know you understand dinosaurs as your thinking is pre Jurasic.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, checkered flag said:

I have no problem with gays and have friends that are such. I am against special privileges though. This should be a civil rights issue where everyone has the same rights. 

Gay marriage seems  like asking for special rights.

It is about Equality nothing special about that unless of course you harbour the belief in apartheid 

[brianp0803]

Maybe the post had a typo. It said gay people should not have special rights. Maybe it was meant to say straight people should not have special rights. In that case I agree, straight people and gay people should have the same right to get married. No special rights for one group.
 

Utah within the last couple years passed a law stating must be at least 16 to get married. Before that it was possible to get married younger than 16. Although technically not pedophilia if you’re married, it just seems a way around it. Do a Google search on “child brides” and “mormons” and get prepared for a ton of reading on this practice in recent history.  Do you think the men marrying child brides had sex with her before married? But I forgot the previous poster that through this is strictly a gay issue. 

[CMNightRider]

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

You should be writing comedy.

There is no logic in anything you have written,.

Heard of dinosaurs and birds??

I know you understand dinosaurs as your thinking is pre Jurasic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

You should be writing comedy.

There is no logic in anything you have written,.

Heard of dinosaurs and birds??

I know you understand dinosaurs as your thinking is pre Jurasic.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I went over your head with the basic biology lesson.  Your message is a very good example of common sense not really being that common.  You should feel right at home with many of the posters on this site.  

 

Common sense should be enough for most people to know being married to a same sex individual is wrong on so many levels.  A normal person shouldn't have to rely on a survey to know this.  It comes as no surprise you don't believe the word of God.     

[nrasmussen]

9 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

 

I guess I went over your head with the basic biology lesson.  Your message is a very good example of common sense not really being that common.  You should feel right at home with many of the posters on this site.  

 

Common sense should be enough for most people to know being married to a same sex individual is wrong on so many levels.  A normal person shouldn't have to rely on a survey to know this.  It comes as no surprise you don't believe the word of God.     

Normal people don't believe in fairytales.

[brianp0803]

The bible also says that God disapproves of divorce, but allows it due to the wickedness in mans heart and does not allow remarriage - but both of these are commonly practiced in the church. 

 

Keeping the sabbath holy and not working on it - how many church-goers follow that rule.  '

 

Anybody who is divorced or ever had sex outside of marriage is not following God's desires.

 

A consistent church-goer friend decided to default on his home loan with the bank because he owned more on the house than it was worth.  He had the salary to pay the loan, but he said God does not want him wasting his money (but needlessly defaulting on his loan was ok - he still had the same job)

 

Do you honestly tithe?

 

I know someone prayed about everyone's problem (or gossiped)

 

Most church goers I have every met following the Bible when it beneficial to them and call it just a story when it is inconvenient to them.  

[pineapple01]

 Just imagine waking up with a Man. One Tour  of Duty overseas was enough.

[pineapple01]

31 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

The bible also says that God disapproves of divorce, but allows it due to the wickedness in mans heart and does not allow remarriage - but both of these are commonly practiced in the church. 

 

Keeping the sabbath holy and not working on it - how many church-goers follow that rule.  '

 

Anybody who is divorced or ever had sex outside of marriage is not following God's desires.

 

A consistent church-goer friend decided to default on his home loan with the bank because he owned more on the house than it was worth.  He had the salary to pay the loan, but he said God does not want him wasting his money (but needlessly defaulting on his loan was ok - he still had the same job)

 

Do you honestly tithe?

 

I know someone prayed about everyone's problem (or gossiped)

 

Most church goers I have every met following the Bible when it beneficial to them and call it just a story when it is inconvenient to them.  

Its about Humpin not readin.

[teatime101]

3 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

I guess I went over your head with the basic biology lesson.

'biology, LOL

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, pineapple01 said:

 Just imagine waking up with a Man. One Tour  of Duty overseas was enough.

Fill in woman if you're gay. Is that so hard for you to imagine? 

[Blumpie]

You're arguing over the bible?  A new low!

Old men, get a life.  

[Pilotman]

2 minutes ago, Blumpie said:

You're arguing over the bible?  A new low!

Old men, get a life.  

Ah the bible.  A good story, but totally unbelievable, a bit like Star Wars, but without the robots.