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

[AgentSmith]

Next poll:

 

Foreigners who are against gay marriage should be deported to their conservative hell holes (or Malaysia) and banned indefinitely.

-- Yes

-- Yes

Edited July 15, 2020 by AgentSmith

[brucec64]

On 7/12/2020 at 3:12 PM, bbi1 said:

Exactly spot on with that comment.

It's usually the people who can't accept who they are that have the strongest objections to gay rights and are the most homophobic.

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, Pilotman said:

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

Grimms Fairytales, to attempt to keep naughty children in line.

 

[RJRS1301]

13 hours 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.     

Do you sleep with your wife when she menstruates? 

Do you send the menstruating women to a cave/shed to live and then take cleansing bathes for 7 days following?

Do you wear mixed fabric?

Do you plant different plants in the same area ?

Should adulterers be stoned to death?

Are people with disability products of "evil" ?

Ever had sex without marriage?

Ever masturbated? 

 

This is the written in your "word of god " book.

Or like many alleged believers, just pick and choose what suits your limited viewpoints?

 

 

[checkered flag]

8 hours ago, brucec64 said:

It's usually the people who can't accept who they are that have the strongest objections to gay rights and are the most homophobic.

Is this from the illiberal handbook? Everyone is free to form their own views. 

[RJRS1301]

By the way, for those opposed to Equality, no one will be forcing you to marry a person of the same gender, so it will not become compulsory.

Relax and go back to your knitting.

 

 

[checkered flag]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

By the way, for those opposed to Equality, no one will be forcing you to marry a person of the same gender, so it will not become compulsory.

Relax and go back to your knitting.

 

 

That God for that, but not knitting. 

[CMNightRider]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Do you sleep with your wife when she menstruates? 

Do you send the menstruating women to a cave/shed to live and then take cleansing bathes for 7 days following?

Do you wear mixed fabric?

Do you plant different plants in the same area ?

Should adulterers be stoned to death?

Are people with disability products of "evil" ?

Ever had sex without marriage?

Ever masturbated? 

 

This is the written in your "word of god " book.

Or like many alleged believers, just pick and choose what suits your limited viewpoints?

 

 

When we die, we will all kneel before Jesus Christ and be held accountable for what we did and didn't do during our lifetime on earth.  For those who believe in God and believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we need to pray to Jesus for forgiveness and repent from our sins.  It is just that simple to be saved.

 

There are several Bible passages that say what will happen to those who reject God and deny Jesus died on the cross for our sins.  None of these Bible passages have good news for those who mock and deny God and Jesus Christ.

 

Instead of taking out of context select Bible passages without trying to understand their meaning, maybe you should actually read and study the Bible.  The Bible condemns homosexual sex as an immoral and unnatural sin, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27.   First Corinthians 6:9 states homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the Kingdom of God.  

 

Since this topic is about "Gay Marriage," rather than taking a survey it would probably be in the best interest of those who participate in this sort of behavior to know what God says about this topic in the Bible.  God gave us free choice to live out our life as we see fit.  He is not going to force anyone to spend eternity in Heaven if you don't want to.  However, the alternative doesn't sound good to me.  We all have only two choices, so I think it is best to choose wisely.      

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

When we die, we will all kneel before Jesus Christ and be held accountable for what we did and didn't do during our lifetime on earth.  For those who believe in God and believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we need to pray to Jesus for forgiveness and repent from our sins.  It is just that simple to be saved.

 

There are several Bible passages that say what will happen to those who reject God and deny Jesus died on the cross for our sins.  None of these Bible passages have good news for those who mock and deny God and Jesus Christ.

 

Instead of taking out of context select Bible passages without trying to understand their meaning, maybe you should actually read and study the Bible.  The Bible condemns homosexual sex as an immoral and unnatural sin, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27.   First Corinthians 6:9 states homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the Kingdom of God.  

 

Since this topic is about "Gay Marriage," rather than taking a survey it would probably be in the best interest of those who participate in this sort of behavior to know what God says about this topic in the Bible.  God gave us free choice to live out our life as we see fit.  He is not going to force anyone to spend eternity in Heaven if you don't want to.  However, the alternative doesn't sound good to me.  We all have only two choices, so I think it is best to choose wisely.      

Please take your fire and brimstone preaching somewhere else. It's extremely offensive. Most of the people in the world aren't Christian, Christians are a small minority in Thailand, and certainly not even all Christians buy into that kind of fire and brimstone fear mongering. 

[canopy]

22 hours ago, Logosone said:

that we should abolish society as we know it, without offering a convincing or well thought out alternative, is frankly not convincing

 

And frankly I never said anything of the kind. I simply discussed what is absolutely happening in the 21st century. It's as if you still fail to grasp how many more people there will be than jobs so let's get specific. There are 4 million truck drivers and taxi drivers in the US alone. That's a lot. These jobs are soon to go the way like the caboose driver in the 1980's. Anyone who can't see this is as blind as a bat. And we aren't talking cabooses, but an extremely large percentage of the job market. So now what are all these children in the pipeline, say that would normally become Bangkok taxi drivers, going to do for a living? And those that get laid off? This is an example of the reality for all these surplus children you advocate. And read carefully, I never advocated nor discounted a universal income (nor is it appropriate in this thread) but noted it is an option being considered. You asked where tax money comes from without sustaining the population size? Ok good question though again off topic but I'll spill the beans. Some propose taxing robot factories and robot taxis to help support the human jobs they displace as one option. Again I am not advocating or discounting this approach, just mentioning one alternative.

 

Huge amounts of jobs are going away for good and we don't yet know how we will cope with all the extra children in the pipeline making it utterly ridiculous to prop up pumping out even more children with incentives. And furthermore I firmly disagree with your notion that we should discriminate for or against a group of people based on economic merits. It's a slippery slope and before long you'll be saying things like smart people should get more tax incentives to have children because it can be economically justified. I am against discriminating for or against hetero, gay, or any other group no matter how large the group, how economically interesting it may be, or any other reason. I am for equality for all.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by canopy

[teatime101]

47 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

out of context select Bible passages

That's my last LOL for today.

 

What do we do here, toss a coin?

 

"God does change his mind."
"God does not change his mind."

 

How about these:

 

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

 

What kind of context could change their meaning? What kind of OCD moron would obsess about trivial details like what people wear or how they trim their facial hair? I'll tell you who: sociopathic, power hungry religious zealots who write Bible verses to control the population, that's who.

 

 

OK, one more LOL for the nonce.

 

"If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal."

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by teatime101

[checkered flag]

1 hour ago, teatime101 said:

That's my last LOL for today.

 

What do we do here, toss a coin?

 

"God does change his mind."
"God does not change his mind."

 

How about these:

 

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

 

What kind of context could change their meaning? What kind of OCD moron would obsess about trivial details like what people wear or how they trim their facial hair? I'll tell you who: sociopathic, power hungry religious zealots who write Bible verses to control the population, that's who.

 

 

OK, one more LOL for the nonce.

 

"If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal."

 

 

 

 

However the cancel culture illiberal mob want to dictate our thoughts and values. They don't want us to be not free to have our own opinions and are put down as zealots if we don't go along. I say leave me alone to decide what's best and you can do the same. Don't tell me embrace this weird stuff because it's just sick.

I treat everyone with respect regardless, but still think it's not normal. 

[The Barmbeker]

18 hours 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.     

A "norma;" person should not believe in fairy- tales, beyond the age of 12!

And if they do, they should not be allowed to vote...or ride a big- boy motorcycle!

Edited July 16, 2020 by The Barmbeker

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, canopy said:

 

And frankly I never said anything of the kind. I simply discussed what is absolutely happening in the 21st century. It's as if you still fail to grasp how many more people there will be than jobs so let's get specific. There are 4 million truck drivers and taxi drivers in the US alone. That's a lot. These jobs are soon to go the way like the caboose driver in the 1980's. Anyone who can't see this is as blind as a bat. And we aren't talking cabooses, but an extremely large percentage of the job market. So now what are all these children in the pipeline, say that would normally become Bangkok taxi drivers, going to do for a living? And those that get laid off? This is an example of the reality for all these surplus children you advocate. And read carefully, I never advocated nor discounted a universal income (nor is it appropriate in this thread) but noted it is an option being considered. You asked where tax money comes from without sustaining the population size? Ok good question though again off topic but I'll spill the beans. Some propose taxing robot factories and robot taxis to help support the human jobs they displace as one option. Again I am not advocating or discounting this approach, just mentioning one alternative.

 

Huge amounts of jobs are going away for good and we don't yet know how we will cope with all the extra children in the pipeline making it utterly ridiculous to prop up pumping out even more children with incentives. And furthermore I firmly disagree with your notion that we should discriminate for or against a group of people based on economic merits. It's a slippery slope and before long you'll be saying things like smart people should get more tax incentives to have children because it can be economically justified. I am against discriminating for or against hetero, gay, or any other group no matter how large the group, how economically interesting it may be, or any other reason. I am for equality for all.

 

What you claim to be happening "in the 21st century" is in fact....not happening. According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics:

 

Since May 2014, the recovery point of the most recent recession, nonfarm payroll employment has expanded for 56 consecutive months, adding over 11.7 million jobs.

 

By comparison, the longest employment expansion in CES history began in February 1993, lasted nearly twice as long (96 months), and added almost twice as many jobs (22.7 million).

 

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/employment-growth-accelerates-in-2018.htm

 

In fact, the number of jobs has increased greatly in almost every single year, discounting periods of recession:

 

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1948/article/pdf/labor-force-employment-and-unemployment-1929-39-estimating-methods.pdf

 

https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-3863218#citation-8

 

Regarding the taxi industry it is far from clear it will disappear, Elon Musk's Robotaxis are a long way away and may just be fantasy. Certainly no threat to the taxi industry at this point. Even if the taxi industry were to disappear completely you fail to factor in one key thing: technology create jobs. Tesla's Robotaxis would have to be built. Indeed Tesla's creation itself shows that technology creates job as well as destroys them. Indeed Amazon has been one major employment creator. 

 

You'll forgive me if I prefer real world job creation to ideas like taxing robots.

 

Whether you think people should not be discriminated based on economic merits has not stopped any government from taxing me at the maximum taxation rate for over 20 years, apart from the kind government of the Cayman Islands that is. In fact governments all around the world discriminate everyone based on economic merits, see incentives for child birth.

 

I am for equality for all as well, real equality:

 

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

 

That is true equality.

 

 

 

[canopy]

I am not convinced incentives for having children make economic sense in the 21st century and furthermore do not believe this kind of discrimination has a place in government to begin with. You have some valid discussion points, but are outside the scope of this thread. Feel free to open up a new thread in the relevant forum where it can be discussed in detail is better than hijacking this one. This topic and the survey results are quite interesting and important to keep discussing. I am in somewhat shock that 2/3rd's of the people oppose gays having the same rights as others for whatever reason. What a world we live in.

 

[RJRS1301]

4 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

When we die, we will all kneel before Jesus Christ and be held accountable for what we did and didn't do during our lifetime on earth.  For those who believe in God and believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we need to pray to Jesus for forgiveness and repent from our sins.  It is just that simple to be saved.

 

There are several Bible passages that say what will happen to those who reject God and deny Jesus died on the cross for our sins.  None of these Bible passages have good news for those who mock and deny God and Jesus Christ.

 

Instead of taking out of context select Bible passages without trying to understand their meaning, maybe you should actually read and study the Bible.  The Bible condemns homosexual sex as an immoral and unnatural sin, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27.   First Corinthians 6:9 states homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the Kingdom of God.  

 

Since this topic is about "Gay Marriage," rather than taking a survey it would probably be in the best interest of those who participate in this sort of behavior to know what God says about this topic in the Bible.  God gave us free choice to live out our life as we see fit.  He is not going to force anyone to spend eternity in Heaven if you don't want to.  However, the alternative doesn't sound good to me.  We all have only two choices, so I think it is best to choose wisely.      

wrong wrong wrong, you began being selective about the bible.

When I die, I will be butned and become potash and spread in a garden to fertilise  a tree. 

 

I have no fear of death nor shame or guilt about my life journey.

Seeing as you mentioned the condemnation of homosexual acts ( a good one for the  "religious bigots to fall back on) ) there are something like 11 admonishments about homosexuality over a number of contributors and various translators) of the book, and over 140 about the behaviour of men and women, so who needs more guidance I ask ?

 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, canopy said:

I am not convinced incentives for having children make economic sense in the 21st century and furthermore do not believe this kind of discrimination has a place in government to begin with. You have some valid discussion points, but are outside the scope of this thread. Feel free to open up a new thread in the relevant forum where it can be discussed in detail is better than hijacking this one. This topic and the survey results are quite interesting and important to keep discussing. I am in somewhat shock that 2/3rd's of the people oppose gays having the same rights as others for whatever reason. What a world we live in.

 

Well, every government in the world, from Singapore to Japan to France to the USA disagrees with you.

 

And frankly it is not clear at all on what basis you would think providing incentives for having children does not "make economic sense". Clearly the pension system, hospitals, schools, theatres, roads, all these things depend on future taxpayers.

 

Not only does it make "economic sense" to provide incentives for having children, it is vital that governments do so for society to have a chance to survive as we know it.

 

I don't see why gays should have special priveleges in this regard, when childless couples are also penalised in tax for not having children. 

 

Why should gays have the same rights as heterosexual couples who have children, when they can never have children, and never contribute to the pool of people who pay future tax yet claim pension benefits, use the roads, hospitals, theatres and schools? All of these are only possible because heterosexual people have children and thus future taxpayers.

[GalaxyMan]

There should be no discrimination whatsoever vis-a-vis marriage. Any people of legal age, and their sex or number of people doesn't matter, who want to be legally bonded in a marriage, should be allowed to do so, with all of the attendant rights and privileges inherent in such an arrangement. This is a no-brainer. ????

[checkered flag]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

wrong wrong wrong, you began being selective about the bible.

When I die, I will be butned and become potash and spread in a garden to fertilise  a tree. 

 

I have no fear of death nor shame or guilt about my life journey.

Seeing as you mentioned the condemnation of homosexual acts ( a good one for the  "religious bigots to fall back on) ) there are something like 11 admonishments about homosexuality over a number of contributors and various translators) of the book, and over 140 about the behaviour of men and women, so who needs more guidance I ask ?

 

We all can think for ourselves and make choices accordingly. No need or appreciation for your moral stands. I believe in free choice and to each his/her own. Best to keep moral values personal and not preach to others.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

We all can think for ourselves and make choices accordingly. No need or appreciation for your moral stands. I believe in free choice and to each his/her own. Best to keep moral values personal and not preach to others.

Preaching, no giving a viewpoint that differs from the one who began preaching the bible, pointing  out his flawed arguments, it is called debate.

 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

don't see why gays should have special priveleges in this regard, when childless couples are also penalised in tax for not having children. 

What "special privileges?

 

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

when they can never have children, and never contribute to the pool of people who pay future tax

I personally know two men in a longer term and married relationship ( yes legally married) who both have a child from the same mother, she was inseminated on separate occasions resulting in two offspring for them. They know the birth mother, they know her role, and they socialise with her.

For you to say gay people cannot have children is incorrect.  

Surrogacy has been occurring in many countries for many years, for heterosexual and same attracted people.

 

. 

[checkered flag]

8 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Preaching, no giving a viewpoint that differs from the one who began preaching the bible, pointing  out his flawed arguments, it is called debate.

 

Viewpoint to you but preaching to me. I'll leave it there as we don't agree.

[checkered flag]

3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

What "special privileges?

 

I personally know two men in a longer term and married relationship ( yes legally married) who both have a child from the same mother, she was inseminated on separate occasions resulting in two offspring for them. They know the birth mother, they know her role, and they socialise with her.

For you to say gay people cannot have children is incorrect.  

Surrogacy has been occurring in many countries for many years, for heterosexual and same attracted people.

 

. 

Why then do gays want to marry. Is there a tax advantage, being able to get marriage visas, inheritance rights etc? I think Thailand has stopped surrogates because of problems in the past. 

That being said, we are all guests in Thailand and it's not our place to tell the government how they should treat gays as long as civil rights are observed. In other words "none of our/your business".

Thailand has big problems to handle and frankly this doesn't rise to the level worth consideration

[Logosone]

20 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

What "special privileges?

 

I personally know two men in a longer term and married relationship ( yes legally married) who both have a child from the same mother, she was inseminated on separate occasions resulting in two offspring for them. They know the birth mother, they know her role, and they socialise with her.

For you to say gay people cannot have children is incorrect.  

Surrogacy has been occurring in many countries for many years, for heterosexual and same attracted people.

 

. 

If you enable gay marriage, you provide gays with all the tax benefits reserved for heterosexual married people.

 

However, with heterosexual people there is a chance that they have children and thus contribute to the pool of people contributing to pensions, taxpayers.

 

With gays there is no chance of them contributing to the pool of people paying for pensions, the pool of taxpayers. Yet gays already claim pension but do not contribute to future generations who pay pensions and do not contribute to the pool of future taxpayers either. 

 

So to on the one hand enable gays to benefit from all the tax exemptions available to married people, but to never have them contribute to the pool of taxpayers or people paying for pensions is giving gays special privileges over and above heterosexual couples, who bear the burden of having to raise the next generations of future taxpayers and pension contributors who will keep the systems going which gays and lesbians use today, pensions, schools, theatres, roads, hospitals etc.

 

It is therefore right that gays are not given tax advantages, indeed that they are penalised in terms of taxation, like childless couples, because of their failure to contribute to the pool of future taxpayers on a level with heterosexual couples.

 

The perversions of surrogacy or science to enable gays and lesbians to have children are so minute in number as to not merit consideration. In most civilized countries surrogacy is illegal, as frankenstein babies should be.

 

Equality, true equality means:

 

"The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows therefrom: Never to make the unequal equal".

Edited July 16, 2020 by Logosone

[brianp0803]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

I don't see why gays should have special priveleges in this regard, when childless couples are also penalised in tax for not having children.

 

Nobody should have special privileges.  Two married straight people without children and two married gay men without children should be treated the same.  Married couples (gay or straight) with children (biological or adapted) get tax credits. Married couples (gay or straight) without children pay the same tax penalties

No special privileges for any group.  Everyone is treated the same

 

If married without children get penalized with taxes, then allowing gay marriage without children will also get penalized in taxes will bring in extra tax revenue.  This argument probably applies more to America than Thailand.

 

For Thailand, in addition to joining other 1st world countries recognizing gay marriages, it could make it possible for gay foreigners to live in Thailand with Thai partners and bringing money into the country – same as straight couples.  As there is a financial requirement for a foreigner male to get a marriage extension, Thailand could make the same financial requirement for gay marriage. Currently benefits for a female foreigner married to Thai do not have financial requirements, but still still about equality.

The same benefit that Thailand giving visa extension for straight couples would bring the same benefits for gay couples.

Nothing special for either group. Equality for all.  Joining other 1st world nations

 

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, checkered flag said:

Why then do gays want to marry. Is there a tax advantage, being able to get marriage visas, inheritance rights etc? I think Thailand has stopped surrogates because of problems in the past. 

That being said, we are all guests in Thailand and it's not our place to tell the government how they should treat gays as long as civil rights are observed. In other words "none of our/your business".

Thailand has big problems to handle and frankly this doesn't rise to the level worth consideration

Simple

EQUALITY 

[checkered flag]

44 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

 

Nobody should have special privileges.  Two married straight people without children and two married gay men without children should be treated the same.  Married couples (gay or straight) with children (biological or adapted) get tax credits. Married couples (gay or straight) without children pay the same tax penalties

No special privileges for any group.  Everyone is treated the same

 

If married without children get penalized with taxes, then allowing gay marriage without children will also get penalized in taxes will bring in extra tax revenue.  This argument probably applies more to America than Thailand.

 

For Thailand, in addition to joining other 1st world countries recognizing gay marriages, it could make it possible for gay foreigners to live in Thailand with Thai partners and bringing money into the country – same as straight couples.  As there is a financial requirement for a foreigner male to get a marriage extension, Thailand could make the same financial requirement for gay marriage. Currently benefits for a female foreigner married to Thai do not have financial requirements, but still still about equality.

The same benefit that Thailand giving visa extension for straight couples would bring the same benefits for gay couples.

Nothing special for either group. Equality for all.  Joining other 1st world nations

 

So how would it work for a marriage visa, if the falong partner says he/she is the Jane. Would that mean no financial funds would be needed. 

Why should Thailand follow others? Thailand has it's own Buddhist based values and should not follow the know it all west.

I think with everything else happening in Thailand this subject is a waste of time.

[RJRS1301]

15 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

So how would it work for a marriage visa, if the falong partner says he/she is the Jane. Would that mean no financial funds would be needed. 

Why should Thailand follow others? Thailand has it's own Buddhist based values and should not follow the know it all west.

I think with everything else happening in Thailand this subject is a waste of time.

Because both partners are the same gender,does not mean after marriage one takes on the gender of an opposite gender. (in your crude terminology "The Jane")

What ever occurs within a visa situation is another legal matter, which could be dealt with along the journey of change. It has not caused too many problems in other jurisdictions. Do you understand the concept of "Equality"??

Ones gender identity does not change. It is not about emulating your heteronormative view.

Also not all same sex attracted people want to marry, similar to some heterosexual identified people , it is about the "right"(and responsibility) and Equality

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, brianp0803 said:

 

Nobody should have special privileges.  Two married straight people without children and two married gay men without children should be treated the same.  Married couples (gay or straight) with children (biological or adapted) get tax credits. Married couples (gay or straight) without children pay the same tax penalties

No special privileges for any group.  Everyone is treated the same

 

If married without children get penalized with taxes, then allowing gay marriage without children will also get penalized in taxes will bring in extra tax revenue.  This argument probably applies more to America than Thailand.

 

For Thailand, in addition to joining other 1st world countries recognizing gay marriages, it could make it possible for gay foreigners to live in Thailand with Thai partners and bringing money into the country – same as straight couples.  As there is a financial requirement for a foreigner male to get a marriage extension, Thailand could make the same financial requirement for gay marriage. Currently benefits for a female foreigner married to Thai do not have financial requirements, but still still about equality.

The same benefit that Thailand giving visa extension for straight couples would bring the same benefits for gay couples.

Nothing special for either group. Equality for all.  Joining other 1st world nations

 

But that is what gay marriage means. Legalising gay marriage means that all the employment, unemployment, taxation benefits that married heterosexuals enjoy are also given to gays and lesbians. However, unlike with heterosexuals, with gays and lesbians there is never a chance that they can produce someone who contributes to the pension system, to the pool of taxpayers.

 

And heterosexual people have to bear all the burden of raising these future taxpayers and pension contributors. Yet gay people just reap the benefits, pension, hospital roads, theatres, schools, but unlike heterosexual couples can never contribute to the pool of taxpayers or pension contributors.

 

Do you not see the unequal treatment that benefits gay couples here?

 

Since gay people are a small minority in countries outside Thailand, legalising gay marriage would not bring a great number of gay people to Thailand simply because of gay marriage. In fact most gay people who come Thailand already come here for sex with younger male Thai partners, and marriage figures very low on the priority list.

 

And you would have to set that off against the additional health issues that an influx of gay foreigners would bring.

 

 

[teatime101]

7 hours ago, Logosone said:

All of these are only possible because heterosexual people have children and thus future taxpayers.

Population growth is not limitless, you know. The planet can only support so many humans. Western countries are close to zero growth already, which is very encouraging. Predictions are that the world will peak at less than 10 billion people and then gradually fall to maybe half that. It will be a difficult transition, because of the top heavy age distribution, but once those older generations pass on, it will be a much more sustainable level to manage, with less pressure on the environment, especially with lower carbon emissions.

 

Homosexual couples also put less strain on the future planet by not having children.