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

[RJRS1301]

4 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

This topic is about gay marriage and if it is good for Thailand or not.

Then stick to that,

Keep your bible fetish away from the argument, and your obsession with anal sex as well, you are entitled to hold your bigoted, dated, homophobic viewpoints, but stick to the subject at hand.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Surelynot]

6 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

No man in his right mind would think of penetrating another mans anal cavity with his penis.

I am as heterosexual as you can get......had a prostate examination recently......can't say it was totally unpleasant.

[RJRS1301]

4 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

Instead of displaying your lack of knowledge on subject matter you know absolutely nothing about, maybe your time would be better spent tip toeing through the tulips with your same sex partner or better yet actually reading the Bible to see what God thinks about this.

Really good advice , please feel free to the same with chosen partner irrespective of gender or orientation. 

You might also look up the words:

Equality
Acceptance

Compassion

Then use your readings of your book to carry out the meaning of the above words

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Surelynot]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Instead of displaying your lack of knowledge on subject matter you know absolutely nothing about, maybe your time would be better spent tip toeing through the tulips with your same sex partner or better yet actually reading the Bible to see what God thinks about this.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. 

 

Don't tell me... the earth is 10,000 years old and dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test your faith.....get a grip.

 

(Not RJRS1301's quote by the way)

Edited July 24, 2020 by Surelynot

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Really good advice , please feel free to the same with chosen partner irrespective of gender or orientation. 

You might also look up the words:

Equality
Acceptance

Compassion

Then use your readings of your book to carry out the meaning of the above words

 

The more religious they get, the less christian they become....weird?

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. 

 

Don't tell me... the earth is 10,000 years old and dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test your faith.....get a grip.

Cant help fanatics! In name of god, willing to massacre and die in gods name! Because it says so in the bible

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Tagged said:

Cant help fanatics! In name of god, willing to massacre and die in gods name! Because it says so in the bible

My greatest achievement in life is to have raised 4 intelligent, beautiful children...all of whom are atheists...thank god!

[brianp0803]

Before I had a girlfriend that was very religious, She went to church constantly, knew the Bible very well, and prayed for everyone(or gossiped about everyone). She was good about citing Bible verses about how everyone else was doing something wrong. 

 

After about the third date we were having unprotected sex. She was very horny. But I was careful to pull out. She was good in bed.

 

Although I felt conflicted when we were supposed to teach junior high kids together in the church about proper behavior on dating.

 

About six months after her having a new boyfriend,  she was claiming she was raped. I assume she got pregnant from her current boyfriend but was claiming rape so she would not lose-face about being pregnant from her boyfriend. She did not have a baby. Not sure if she thought she was pregnant, was really raped, or aborted the baby.
 

Most religious people I’ve met feel God wants them to be prosperous. And since “the ends justify the means”, they will do anything to fulfill be prosperous. Because God says they should be prosperous

 

I will avoid any business that claims Christian values because I know I will be ripped off.

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

Before I had a girlfriend that was very religious, She went to church constantly, knew the Bible very well, and prayed for everyone(or gossiped about everyone). She was good about citing Bible verses about how everyone else was doing something wrong. 

 

After about the third date we were having unprotected sex. She was very horny. But I was careful to pull out. She was good in bed.

 

Although I felt conflicted when we were supposed to teach junior high kids together in the church about proper behavior on dating.

 

About six months after her having a new boyfriend,  she was claiming she was raped. I assume she got pregnant from her current boyfriend but was claiming rape so she would not lose-face about being pregnant from her boyfriend. She did not have a baby. Not sure if she thought she was pregnant, was really raped, or aborted the baby.
 

Most religious people I’ve met feel God wants them to be prosperous. And since “the ends justify the means”, they will do anything to fulfill be prosperous. Because God says they should be prosperous

 

I will avoid any business that claims Christian values because I know I will be ripped off.

As a dyed in the wool atheist I can still recognize many good things in the Bible.....I just don't need the fantasy of a God to threaten me in order to make me believe the good things........."do unto others as you would have done unto yourself".....here endeth the lesson. 

[Saint Nick]

48 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. 

 

Don't tell me... the earth is 10,000 years old and dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to test your faith.....get a grip.

 

(Not RJRS1301's quote by the way)

10.000? How about 6.000 according to God'd big Book of bad Ideas?

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Saint Nick said:

10.000? How about 6.000 according to God'd big Book of bad Ideas?

Saw a chemist!!! being interviewed and he prempted the next question from the interviewer....."you are going to suggest I think the earth is 6000 years old aren't you".......ha! Well you are wrong I think it's at least 10,000 years old"....... <deleted>....a chemist for god's sake.

[Logosone]

8 hours ago, brianp0803 said:

Allow marriage between two people, heterosexual and homosexual, or demy to all

Allow polygamy to heterosexual and homosexual couples,  or deny to all. The government chose to deny to all. 
No special rights given or taken away based on selective groups.

 

Based on your argument, should the government allow incestuous relationships?
But the rules should apply to everyone and not only special groups.

As polygamy was practice, it was very sexist. A man could marry multiple women, and often arranged marriages of women under the age of 18. But women could not marry multiple men.

The government felt this was not good for society and denied it to all people. No special group was given special rights above another group

Right, so government can deny the right to marriage to some people. Like the Polyamorous.

 

How about zoophiles, do you think zoophiles should have the right to marry their donkey, horse or dog?

 

Why give give gays rights that people with other paraphilias do not have?

 

You're exactly spot on, society can deny rights to people if society does not believe that granting that right is good for society.

 

See, you get it. 

[alyx]

7 hours ago, Surelynot said:

I am as heterosexual as you can get......had a prostate examination recently......can't say it was totally unpleasant.

Well, you were totally relaxed and the MD was gentle, it helps. 

By the way I hope that the results were reassuring 

[alyx]

11 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

The anus was designed by God to eliminate waste (poop) from your body and was not meant to have objects penetrating it.  It is sort of like a one way street designed for traffic going in one direction.  "I thought everyone in the year 2020 knew basic things." 

I am glad you have God's roadmap at handsWhy I am glad you have God's roadmap at hands so you might bve able to clarify this for me: Why would God create a g-spot in a man’s anus when being gay is supposedly a sin?....unless it was "made in China" it cannot be considered as a manufacturing defect, can it ?

That being said, all kind of couples are "in" this behaviour (pun intended)..and people in 2020 know less than the ones in the 1960' ????

[alyx]

26 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Right, so government can deny the right to marriage to some people. Like the Polyamorous.

 

How about zoophiles, do you think zoophiles should have the right to marry their donkey, horse or dog?

 

Why give give gays rights that people with other paraphilias do not have?

 

You're exactly spot on, society can deny rights to people if society does not believe that granting that right is good for society.

 

See, you get it. 

But ....Society, at large, is favorable ( although the amount of people does not make it right )....does that make an anti-social of you ?

[brianp0803]

No, the government cannot selectively give rights to some groups of people and deny it to other groups of people. But it can deny it to all groups of people.
 

Your arguments are nothing new. They were initially used when trying to deny interracial marriage. The same arguments about allowing marriage to dog we’re given then also. I believe they also use a religious argument about denying interracial couples marriage because unevenly yoked. I would guess you were also against interracial marriages and complained about the cost to the government of allowing mixed races to marry. I remember reading political statements talking about the “horror of children’s books having a white boy holding the black girls hands.“

 

If you believe two people making a commitment to each other is a bad thing, then all marriage should be dissolved.

 

I believe the marriage vows are about loving and commitment to each other but nothing in there about sex or having children. The marriage vows do not have to change at all for same-sex couples. They fit perfectly. If the wedding vows are what marriage is about, the same-sex marriage is exactly the same thing. Otherwise the marriage vows should be rewritten to be specific how heterosexual love is different. Something should be put in there about sex and children.

 

The government can give rights to all Polyamorous marriages that are interracial, heterosexual, homosexual, or deny those rights to all groups. 
If Polyamorous marriage Is granted to one group of people, then it must be granted to all groups of people. If denied to a group of people, then it should be denied to all groups of people.

 

But general Polyamorous groups were generally religious groups with the church arranging marriages with a view that the function of women was to give sex to their arranged husband and take care of his children. Often involving child brides. Unless required by their church, very few women who want to be wife number 3, 4 or 10.
 

The government has right before to take away the tax benefits of a religion that is sexist or racist. The religion then gets a quick revelation from God that he changed his mind, and the church changes the practice and maintains their tax benefits

We either need to deny to heterosexual, interracial, homosexual couples the right to marry, or give heterosexual, interracial, homosexual couples the right to marry

 

But the government does have the right to deny to all types of people (gay and straight) behaviors it feels are bad for society or racist or sexist.

 

If marriage is a basic human right, it should be given to all humans.

[champers]

I have not read through 38 pages of replies, so sorry if this has already been mentioned: gay marriages should be allowed and hotels could arrange marriage ceremonies/honeymoons just as they do for straight couples. Thailand can be a welcoming refuge for those who suffer from anti-gay laws and attitudes in their home countries. I am thinking mainly of China and Russia but there are very many others.

[Logosone]

9 hours ago, brianp0803 said:

No, the government cannot selectively give rights to some groups of people and deny it to other groups of people. But it can deny it to all groups of people.
 

If you believe two people making a commitment to each other is a bad thing, then all marriage should be dissolved.

 

The government can give rights to all Polyamorous marriages that are interracial, heterosexual, homosexual, or deny those rights to all groups. 

If Polyamorous marriage Is granted to one group of people, then it must be granted to all groups of people. If denied to a group of people, then it should be denied to all groups of people.

 

But the government does have the right to deny to all types of people (gay and straight) behaviors it feels are bad for society or racist or sexist.

 

If marriage is a basic human right, it should be given to all humans.

Okay, so we agree that society does have the right to deny and proscribe behaviours it thinks are not beneficial to society. Excellent, so we are in agreement on that.

 

Firstly, human rights are moral principles or norms that describe standard human behaviour that deserves to be protected. Neither homosexual sex nor homosexual marriage are such moral principles or norms that any society would deem deserving of protection. Hence gay marriage has never been considered a human right. Basically because it is not deemed standard human, moral behaviour. It is the behaviour of a very small minority of people 2% of men which until 1973 was considered a mental illness and a crime in many countries.

 

Now following sexual liberation gay behaviour was decriminalized and whilst not "accepted" it was largely tolerated. Which is a good thing, after all gays, like zoophiles, have it hard enough. However it is one thing to tolerate gay homosexual acts and quite another to subsidize it with millions of taxpayer money and encourage it. If one does so, indeed a legitimate question is whether there is a benefit to the country as a whole. As we have seen, nobody here has adduced any benefit to the country as a whole. Plenty of benefits to gays, none for heterosexuals who would be paying millions to allow gay marriage.

 

I would suggest you try and understand the words "The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows, never to make the unequal equal". For only that is true equality.

 

To give zoophiles, homosexuals, polyamorous, paedophiles etc the right to marry on the same level as heterosexuals is not true equality. If people with paraphilias make a commitment to each other that is wonderful and I am a very understanding man and applaud all experiments of society in terms of living. However do not ask me to pay taxpayer money for gay marriage. That experiment has gone as far as it can, and now it is only gay acivists looking out for their benefits, there is no benefit to society in gay marriage.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Logosone

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Okay, so we agree that society does have the right to deny and proscribe behaviours it thinks are not beneficial to society. Excellent, so we are in agreement on that.

 

Firstly, human rights are moral principles or norms that describe standard human behaviour that deserves to be protected. Neither homosexual sex nor homosexual marriage are such moral principles or norms that any society would deem deserving of protection. Hence gay marriage has never been considered a human right. Basically because it is not deemed standard human, moral behaviour. It is the behaviour of a very small minority of people 2% of men which until 1973 was considered a mental illness and a crime in many countries.

 

Now following sexual liberation gay behaviour was decriminalized and whilst not "accepted" it was largely tolerated. Which is a good thing, after all gays, like zoophiles, have it hard enough. However it is one thing to tolerate gay homosexual acts and quite another to subsidize it with millions of taxpayer money and encourage it. If one does so, indeed a legitimate question is whether there is a benefit to the country as a whole. As we have seen, nobody here has adduced any benefit to the country as a whole. Plenty of benefits to gays, none for heterosexuals who would be paying millions to allow gay marriage.

 

I would suggest you try and understand the words "The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows, never to make the unequal equal". For only that is true equality.

 

To give zoophiles, homosexuals, polyamorous, paedophiles etc the right to marry on the same level as heterosexuals is not true equality. If people with paraphilias make a commitment to each other that is wonderful and I am a very understanding man and applaud all experiments of society in terms of living. However do not ask me to pay taxpayer money for gay marriage. That experiment has gone as far as it can, and now it is only gay acivists looking out for their benefits, there is no benefit to society in gay marriage.

 

 

You are the one who is mental, and prove it with this post very well! I feel sorry for you!

Edited July 25, 2020 by Tagged

[brianp0803]

Fortunately, more and more people are becoming enlightened as we become more educated. In educated circles, gay people are generally excepted as part of social circles.

In the past, women were not allowed to vote. Women were considered to be too stupid to be able to vote. Fortunately laws were passed that gave them the right to vote.

in the past, many people believed Black people should be slaves. People actually fought and gave their lives with such strong believes that it was not beneficial to the country to free the black slaves. Fortunately the government intervened and slavery was abolished.
 

Then people try to give Black people “separate but equal” schools. The government had to intervene and says separate is not equal.

 

Many people have strong beliefs that sex outside of marriage is Immoral

 

Are the lot a lot of bigotry and selfishness still exist, the government will probably soon have to act again to grant all people the right to marry.
Marriage is between consenting adults, not animals. Homosexual sex between consenting adults is no more or less immoral than heterosexual sex. Women are just as intelligent as men and have all the same rights as men. People of all races are equal and no one should be subjugated.

 

History has shown us that people will frequently try to put down anyone different from them or anything that does not directly benefit them.
 

The government had to intervene to give women the right to vote, free black slaves, and allow interracial marriages.Probably the same will happen with gay marriages.

 

It looks like 80% of people feel that gay marriage, or at least civil partnership is a good idea. People are becoming more enlightened

 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Firstly, human rights are moral principles or norms that describe standard human behaviour that deserves to be protected. Neither homosexual sex nor homosexual marriage are such moral principles or norms that any society would deem deserving of protection. Hence gay marriage has never been considered a human right. Basically because it is not deemed standard human, moral behaviour. It is the behaviour of a very small minority of people 2% of men which until 1973 was considered a mental illness and a crime in many countries.

29 countries have legalised same sex marriage, so the populations of those countries disagree with you.

1973 was 47 years years ago many steps forward have been made in matters of human rights.

 

Currently 29 of the 50 countries and 8 of the 9 dependent territories in Europe^{[nb 1]} recognise some type of same-sex unions, among them most members of the European Union (23/27).

As of July 2020, sixteen European countries legally recognise and perform same-sex marriages: Austria, Belgium, Denmark and the Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.^{[nb 2]} An additional fourteen European countries legally recognise some form of civil union, namely Andorra, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, Slovenia, and Switzerland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe

 

 

 

 

[The Barmbeker]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

Okay, so we agree that society does have the right to deny and proscribe behaviours it thinks are not beneficial to society. Excellent, so we are in agreement on that.

 

Firstly, human rights are moral principles or norms that describe standard human behaviour that deserves to be protected. Neither homosexual sex nor homosexual marriage are such moral principles or norms that any society would deem deserving of protection. Hence gay marriage has never been considered a human right. Basically because it is not deemed standard human, moral behaviour. It is the behaviour of a very small minority of people 2% of men which until 1973 was considered a mental illness and a crime in many countries.

 

Now following sexual liberation gay behaviour was decriminalized and whilst not "accepted" it was largely tolerated. Which is a good thing, after all gays, like zoophiles, have it hard enough. However it is one thing to tolerate gay homosexual acts and quite another to subsidize it with millions of taxpayer money and encourage it. If one does so, indeed a legitimate question is whether there is a benefit to the country as a whole. As we have seen, nobody here has adduced any benefit to the country as a whole. Plenty of benefits to gays, none for heterosexuals who would be paying millions to allow gay marriage.

 

I would suggest you try and understand the words "The equal for the equal, the unequal for the unequal, and what logically follows, never to make the unequal equal". For only that is true equality.

 

To give zoophiles, homosexuals, polyamorous, paedophiles etc the right to marry on the same level as heterosexuals is not true equality. If people with paraphilias make a commitment to each other that is wonderful and I am a very understanding man and applaud all experiments of society in terms of living. However do not ask me to pay taxpayer money for gay marriage. That experiment has gone as far as it can, and now it is only gay acivists looking out for their benefits, there is no benefit to society in gay marriage.

 

 

To make one thing very clear: human rights! Unless you argue, that homosexuals are not human (or less human than heterosexuals), they should be granted EQUALITY, eg having all the rights (civil or human) that others have!

2) personally, I have no problems with polygamy! None of my business!

3) it was explained to you many times, that homosexuality and pedophilia do not go hand in hand! 

Please spare me your mentioning the SPIEGEL- article for the 100th time, because it does only proove that SOME homosexuals are also pedeophiles, as are maaaaaaany heterosexuals!

4) it was also explained to you akready, that there is a very significant difference between homosexual marriage (or polygamy or heterosexual marriage) and a man, getting marriued to his donkey or a woman, getting married to her Rampant Rabbit- vibrator <deleted> or a man getting married to an 8 year old child!

And the difference is CONSENT! 

The donkey, the <deleted> and the child can not give consent!

Therefore all of the options are off the table and you don't need to repeat any of them anymore!

 

 

[AnnaBanana]

This could be the dawning of a whole new era in Thai family law as it relates to divorce cases.

   It might prove to be a real bonanza for the legal profession here as it is in the US where the shysters are enthusiastic not so much about gay marriage as they are about gay divorce.

[ikke1959]

I believe that the topic is if Gay marriage is good for Thailand or not.. I am wondering why so many posts are talking about what lovers do in their bedrooms...Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with sex but with love and legal possibilities that gay people now not have in Thailand

[moontang]

Anyone else think it would be best to put this topic back in the closet, AND LOCK IT!

[Tagged]

19 minutes ago, moontang said:

Anyone else think it would be best to put this topic back in the closet, AND LOCK IT!

Anyone changed their mind one or the other way? 
 

Dont think so! 
 

Anyone feel more educated? 
 

Dont Think so

 

The real A deleted is still A deleted, and think it is their right to believe love between two grown up humans is their business, and they should decide how other people  should live! 
 

Quite deleted it is

Edited July 25, 2020 by Tagged

[brianp0803]

Although I hope for full equality in marriage for straight and gay people, many countries have started with some form of civil union first and then evolved to full marriage equality.

 

What if Thailand had a marriage similar to what Taiwan does? I believe the rule is for equal marriage among Taiwan people, and between Taiwan people and foreigners from a country that recognizes gay marriage. Since many of us come from countries allow gay marriage, this is a big step. But it would still exclude marriage between people from China and Iran. But as more countries allow gay marriage, I predict a rapid increase to the majority of the world.

 

If Thailand did the same as Taiwan, would gay foreigners married to Thai be entitled to a marriage visa?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, moontang said:

Anyone else think it would be best to put this topic back in the closet, AND LOCK IT!

Maybe but my suggestion is to just don't read it. 

[CMNightRider]

23 hours ago, brianp0803 said:

Fortunately, more and more people are becoming enlightened as we become more educated. In educated circles, gay people are generally excepted as part of social circles.

In the past, women were not allowed to vote. Women were considered to be too stupid to be able to vote. Fortunately laws were passed that gave them the right to vote.

in the past, many people believed Black people should be slaves. People actually fought and gave their lives with such strong believes that it was not beneficial to the country to free the black slaves. Fortunately the government intervened and slavery was abolished.
 

Then people try to give Black people “separate but equal” schools. The government had to intervene and says separate is not equal.

 

Many people have strong beliefs that sex outside of marriage is Immoral

 

Are the lot a lot of bigotry and selfishness still exist, the government will probably soon have to act again to grant all people the right to marry.
Marriage is between consenting adults, not animals. Homosexual sex between consenting adults is no more or less immoral than heterosexual sex. Women are just as intelligent as men and have all the same rights as men. People of all races are equal and no one should be subjugated.

 

History has shown us that people will frequently try to put down anyone different from them or anything that does not directly benefit them.
 

The government had to intervene to give women the right to vote, free black slaves, and allow interracial marriages.Probably the same will happen with gay marriages.

 

It looks like 80% of people feel that gay marriage, or at least civil partnership is a good idea. People are becoming more enlightened

 

I don't think people are becoming more enlightened, they are just more people who are gender confused.

[RJRS1301]

Just now, CMNightRider said:

I don't think people are becoming more enlightened, they are just more people who are gender confused.

Gender has nothing to do with sexual orientation, learn what you are posting about before exposing your ignorance