3 hours ago, Logosone said:

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

So, any couples (straight or gay) not having children place a burden on society in the future? What a bizarre argument.

I think this is bad for Thailand as gay marriage makes a mockery of, and weakens the institution of marriage. What would be next? Marriage to many people, marriage to relatives etc.

 

I'm all for equal rights but marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. 

 

34 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

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.

 

 

Well, we're at 7 billion there's still room for at least 3 billion additional human beings. That's if the scientists calculated the resources correctly, and with technological advances the resources issue is in flux anyway.

 

People talk about overpopulation but fail to understand that the vast majority of that population is old and needs to be maintained. What do you propose we do with the elderly, kill them off so they are not a burden on the planet? They have to be maintained, and it is working taxpayers who do so. The tide of elderly grows bigger every year. You think the elderly will just do you a favour and disappear during a "transition"? What a bizarre notion.

 

Zero growth is not encouraging, another bizarre idea,  and thankfully we are not at zero growth. If a society does not grow it slowly starts to die. That maybe something desirable for some, it is not for me. Growth is essential.

 

The carbon emission issue will be solved with technology anyway.

 

Homosexuals are a strain on the future of every society because they contribute no taxpayers, no future pension contributors. But they claim pensions themselves. They use hospitals, theaters, roads, schools. But do not produce future taxpayers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I think this is bad for Thailand as gay marriage makes a mockery of, and weakens the institution of marriage. What would be next? Marriage to many people, marriage to relatives etc.

 

I'm all for equal rights but marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. 

 

A privileged granted by "heterosexually orientated"males" to others on a biased opinion of "???"" what??

 

 

Your other spurious question regarding relatives is a very BIG RED HERRING ,.

Polygamy is recognised by some religions and courts. But neither of these are about same sex attracted persons equality.

 

Edited July 16, 20206 yr by RJRS1301

7 hours ago, Logosone said:

Homosexuals are a strain on the future of every society because they contribute no taxpayers, no future pension contributors. But they claim pensions themselves. They use hospitals, theaters, roads, schools. But do not produce future taxpayers.

Neither do childless heterosexuals, under you strange thought pattern. 

The severely disabled? Those totally dependent on others,for all daily tasks of living,  are they also a drain>

8 hours ago, teatime101 said:

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.

 

 

Many developed countries are experiencing negative population growth. As the population ages their are fewer people to support them. 

Most runaway growth is in underdeveloped countries, so why not push your ideas there. Unless it would be racist, I suppose.

15 hours 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.

 

Sounds like a cancel culture thing that your always right and no one else can speak up. This whole subject is bull as far as I'm concerned. 

8 hours ago, Logosone said:

Well, we're at 7 billion there's still room for at least 3 billion additional human beings. That's if the scientists calculated the resources correctly, and with technological advances the resources issue is in flux anyway.

 

People talk about overpopulation but fail to understand that the vast majority of that population is old and needs to be maintained. What do you propose we do with the elderly, kill them off so they are not a burden on the planet? They have to be maintained, and it is working taxpayers who do so. The tide of elderly grows bigger every year. You think the elderly will just do you a favour and disappear during a "transition"? What a bizarre notion.

 

Zero growth is not encouraging, another bizarre idea,  and thankfully we are not at zero growth. If a society does not grow it slowly starts to die. That maybe something desirable for some, it is not for me. Growth is essential.

 

The carbon emission issue will be solved with technology anyway.

 

Homosexuals are a strain on the future of every society because they contribute no taxpayers, no future pension contributors. But they claim pensions themselves. They use hospitals, theaters, roads, schools. But do not produce future taxpayers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think most gays are a pain in the ass!

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Neither do childless heterosexuals, under you strange thought pattern. 

The severely disabled? Those totally dependent on others,for all daily tasks of living,  are they also a drain>

Absolutely, childless heterosexuals are just as much of a strain. However with childless couples there is always a chance they will have children. With homosexuals there is never that chance.

 

In essence everyone is a strain on society's pensions system, hospitals, schools, roads, etc, however, the difference is that those who have children produce future pension contributors, future taxpayers. They do not just claim pensions. They ensure that those people who helped pay their pension will have somebody who will in turn pay those people's pension claims.

 

The fact that heterosexual people who have children ensure all the systems work, can be maintained and paid for is clear. That they should have tax and other benefits over and above what those receive who do not contribute future pension contributors, future taxpayers is also clear.

God created man and then made woman to complement him. In the Bible marriage is God’s “fix” for the fact “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18).  

 

Everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it.

 

The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this.

11 hours ago, Logosone said:

majority of that population is old and needs to be maintained

And you already were told plain as day how this will take place without the need for sheer volume of numb human beings like in past centuries. It is disappointing you choose not to take your theory to an appropriate forum, even on a different web site, and discuss it in detail because you would have an opportunity to learn a great deal from like and dislike people. Your mind seems unable to grasp anything changing much after 2020 and that's surprising. Your first few posts were useful in understanding how some people think about the need for inequalities in regards to gays, but I for one am not going to debate your theory here as it's becoming barely relevant. I just ask one thing. Mark your calendar for 18 years and 9 months from today. That's the beginning of when these extra children you advocate pumping out today through economic incentives for economic purposes will start coming into the workforce. Then see how well that theory held up in the world they entered. And make a special note to look at that doozy about robot taxi's "may just be fantasy".

 

Marriage is about recognizing and creating stable relationships – the privilege is currently reserved for the majority of the population (heterosexual). Keeping a privilege for the majority group and denying it to minority groups is generally considered against the law (often called racist).

 

It is not good for man to be alone – I agree with this.  “Everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral “– In the past – Everyone inherently knows that the earth is the center of the universe and flat.  Thankfully we evolve (most of us).  Do church-goers follow all of God’s rules about eating kosher food, stoning cheating wives, loving one another? If someone chooses to follow 10% of the bible and ignores 90% of the bible, then I put little weight into their stated opinions (probably do not match their action – just words to control others)

 

Marriage is about a legal declaration of someone’s love and commitment to another person.  Getting married and having children are completely separate events. What percent of children over 15 years old are still being raised by both their biological parents? Marriage is not serving its original intent.

 

If the purpose of marriage is for generating future taxpayers, then the privilege would be denied to people unable to generate future tax payers.  Men with vasectomies, women past child bearing years, couples not wanting children should be denied the privilege to marry. Allowing older people and people who won’t produce future tax payers to marry would entitle that married spouse to get their partner’s government pension and get the benefits of not paying inheritance tax – this is costing the government millions and millions of dollars. Sterile couples have no chance of every producing children and allowing them to get each other's government pensions, and company health insurance is costing millions of dollars.  Gay people could still produce children using a surrogate. 

 

If a person is on welfare, and his/her mother is on welfare, and the grandmother/father is on welfare, then this person is unlikely to create future tax payers.  Should they be denied privilege to marry? Would denying a marriage certificate change their ability to produce babies (maybe not future tax payers)?  Should laws be enacted to prevent this situation of creating burdens on future generations?

 

In the past, couples were encouraged to be in stable relationships (married) before having children.  Now, having children and being married are having less and less of a correlation.  More and more of the current generation are choosing to not get married, but live together and have children (future tax payers).  I think an unmarried couple can still claim deduction for children without being married.

 

As an incentive to attract employees, many companies (private and government) provide health insurance for the spouse of the employee. A married couple cost the company extra money.  A married couple with children cost the company even more money.  Companies see it to their advantage to take on the added financial burden to get good employee.

 

Initially, America did not allow gay people to marry, but allowed domestic partnerships.  With a registered domestic partnership (the only allowed option for them), gay people qualified for company benefits – same as married.  Then straight couples wanted the same benefits.  Although marriage was an option offered to them, they demanded to be able to get company benefits without getting married (although it was legal for them to get married).  Giving this option to straight people cost companies millions of dollars.  Since straight people can marry, why should they get company benefits from forming a domestic partnership?

Married people gain the power to make medical decision if their partner is unconscious. Having a person who loves you and it committed to you is a great person to make this kind of decision. 

16 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

Marriage is about recognizing and creating stable relationships – the privilege is currently reserved for the majority of the population (heterosexual). Keeping a privilege for the majority group and denying it to minority groups is generally considered against the law (often called racist).

 

It is not good for man to be alone – I agree with this.  “Everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral “– In the past – Everyone inherently knows that the earth is the center of the universe and flat.  Thankfully we evolve (most of us).  Do church-goers follow all of God’s rules about eating kosher food, stoning cheating wives, loving one another? If someone chooses to follow 10% of the bible and ignores 90% of the bible, then I put little weight into their stated opinions (probably do not match their action – just words to control others)

 

Marriage is about a legal declaration of someone’s love and commitment to another person.  Getting married and having children are completely separate events. What percent of children over 15 years old are still being raised by both their biological parents? Marriage is not serving its original intent.

 

If the purpose of marriage is for generating future taxpayers, then the privilege would be denied to people unable to generate future tax payers.  Men with vasectomies, women past child bearing years, couples not wanting children should be denied the privilege to marry. Allowing older people and people who won’t produce future tax payers to marry would entitle that married spouse to get their partner’s government pension and get the benefits of not paying inheritance tax – this is costing the government millions and millions of dollars. Sterile couples have no chance of every producing children and allowing them to get each other's government pensions, and company health insurance is costing millions of dollars.  Gay people could still produce children using a surrogate. 

 

If a person is on welfare, and his/her mother is on welfare, and the grandmother/father is on welfare, then this person is unlikely to create future tax payers.  Should they be denied privilege to marry? Would denying a marriage certificate change their ability to produce babies (maybe not future tax payers)?  Should laws be enacted to prevent this situation of creating burdens on future generations?

 

In the past, couples were encouraged to be in stable relationships (married) before having children.  Now, having children and being married are having less and less of a correlation.  More and more of the current generation are choosing to not get married, but live together and have children (future tax payers).  I think an unmarried couple can still claim deduction for children without being married.

 

As an incentive to attract employees, many companies (private and government) provide health insurance for the spouse of the employee. A married couple cost the company extra money.  A married couple with children cost the company even more money.  Companies see it to their advantage to take on the added financial burden to get good employee.

 

Initially, America did not allow gay people to marry, but allowed domestic partnerships.  With a registered domestic partnership (the only allowed option for them), gay people qualified for company benefits – same as married.  Then straight couples wanted the same benefits.  Although marriage was an option offered to them, they demanded to be able to get company benefits without getting married (although it was legal for them to get married).  Giving this option to straight people cost companies millions of dollars.  Since straight people can marry, why should they get company benefits from forming a domestic partnership?

Married people gain the power to make medical decision if their partner is unconscious. Having a person who loves you and it committed to you is a great person to make this kind of decision. 

Very verbose and hard to follow. I guess these are the tools of the Cancel Culture. Talk until the other person gives up.

21 hours 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.

Like in ...not allowing gay marriage, because God's big book of bad ideas says so?

18 hours 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.

Fine! So let them give back thei IPhones (American), their Premier League (English), their Beer (German) and all the other things, they so gladly adopt from other western countries and go back to following their oh-so-Buddhist way of life (which by the way, they don't even do now!).

And if you think it is a waste of time, why don't you stop posting and do something, that suits you better!?

I for one, would not miss your "input'!

 

2 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

God created man and then made woman to complement him. In the Bible marriage is God’s “fix” for the fact “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18).  

 

Everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it.

 

The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this.

Yes...and please go and watch your neighbors, if they wash their car on Sunday and if they do, please stone them!

On 7/16/2020 at 6:53 AM, RJRS1301 said:

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

 

"Grimms Fairytales?"  When you read the prophecies of the Bible, you simply have to stand back in awe. There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility.

 

The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on three different continents. It was written in at least three different languages by people in all professions.

 

The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

 

In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

I could care less. As long as I don't get touched while picking up the soap in a public bath, I am all for everyone's rights.

 

1 hour ago, CMNightRider said:

"Grimms Fairytales?"  When you read the prophecies of the Bible, you simply have to stand back in awe. There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility.

 

The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on three different continents. It was written in at least three different languages by people in all professions.

 

The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

 

In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

Really, I couldn't care less, if you want to believe in the magic sky- daddy or not!

But the fact, that you make a bronze age- book the base for modern day "politics" and how you want people to live, who have nothing to do with your cult, bothers me!

 

"There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. "

Just take this nugget: so the BIBLE states some PROPHECIES in the old testament and then the BIBLE states, that these prophecies came true in the new testament...

And you see no problem with that argumentation?

 

Anyways: LGBTQ- people are here to stay and they are humans, so they should be treated as such, with all human rights, such as EQUALITY!

Live with it!

Edited July 17, 20206 yr by Saint Nick

Freedom for all!❤️❤️☸️

1 hour ago, CMNightRider said:

The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

In a parallel universe perhaps.

Feel free to believe your dogma , but it makes no difference to my life.

 

Well this generated 24 pages and the Thai government could care less. So it's not worth the space it's written on except  to convince them that some foreigners are loony. I admit to being loony by responding here and to being trolled into this thread. 

I need to have more self constraint and only respond to threads that are worth my attention. 

2 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

"Grimms Fairytales?"  When you read the prophecies of the Bible, you simply have to stand back in awe. There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility.

 

The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on three different continents. It was written in at least three different languages by people in all professions.

 

The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

 

In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

You know Mary there other books

...

6 hours ago, canopy said:

And you already were told plain as day how this will take place without the need for sheer volume of numb human beings like in past centuries. 

You have not given any credible explanation how the mass of old people are to be maintained without future tax payers.

 

Taxing "robots" is not a viable alternative. It's just increasing corporate taxation effectively which is already oppressive for most businesses.

 

We need future taxpayers. We need future pension contributors. 

 

And gay marriage is not the way to achieve this.

The problem with social benefits for popping out kids vs. marriage are best resolved by giving tax breaks for the first couple of nippers IMHO. Also removes the incentive to pop a dozen out and live off the state.

 

I'd be fine if "marriage" is a reserved word for religions and there's another set of legal arrangements called f.ex. "union" between two legal entities, 

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

those who have children produce future pension contributors, future taxpayers

That's an assumption. Gay or straight - it makes no difference to whether one ends up paying tax. Why does anybody have to produce children to pay future tax? It's such a weird position, I can't get my head around it at all.

 

You're a homophobe. Why not just be up front about it, instead of making up lalaland stuff like the above?

6 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

That's an assumption. Gay or straight - it makes no difference to whether one ends up paying tax. Why does anybody have to produce children to pay future tax? It's such a weird position, I can't get my head around it at all.

 

You're a homophobe. Why not just be up front about it, instead of making up lalaland stuff like the above?

Bingo. Zero doubt about that.

6 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

That's an assumption. Gay or straight - it makes no difference to whether one ends up paying tax. Why does anybody have to produce children to pay future tax? It's such a weird position, I can't get my head around it at all.

 

You're a homophobe. Why not just be up front about it, instead of making up lalaland stuff like the above?

Take your insults and go debate with someone on your level. You're going on the ignore list.

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Take your insults and go debate with someone on your level. You're going on the ignore list.

He should be so lucky. 

what a lot of Bullsh** about taxpaying and children....If two people of the same sex marry there is no difference between heterosexual marriage... and people with children hetero or gay will cost the same.. the kids are educated, sick, or whatso ever  if they have a gay or heterosexual father and mother.. and for my pension I pay for it and my partner man or woman will get my share after I die...and tax???? I only think that people who pay a lot of tax will have a little benefit. But gay people in general have more money and can spend more. It seems that the majority here is only jealous .... Yes gaymarriage is good for Thailand.. Look at the beautiful beaches, hotels and possibilities.. Thailand can use this to invite the whole world and asia to come here and have a dream wedding.... That will benefit the country for employment...It doesn't matter with what kind of sex you are married...that is between you and your partner and not for the taxoffice

Edited July 18, 20206 yr by ikke1959