As long as it doesn’t continue to be thrown in our heterosexual faces that they need rights having them grandstanding all the time, then up to them and perhaps it should be legal. But I sort of am a bit withdrawn on the issue of them having kids or adopting, but our world is changing fast and there in many cases are a lot of heterosexual couples that should have been sterilized and banned from being bad parents. But one odd thing is like look at Will Smith’s kids and Angelina and Brad’s kids. Even with all their money something went wrong. So being able to have kids almost should be not a right in a sense.

 

Just now, Matzzon said:

No, this is not good. I a healthy relationship, there is usually a c**t and a d**khead. This is a terrible situation. Now it can be two c**ts in one family as well as two d**kheads. That´s a real recipe for disaster. 

of course heterosexuality is a model to aspire to, with 7 out 10 marriages (in western culture) ending in divorce

2 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

As long as it doesn’t continue to be thrown in our heterosexual faces that they need rights having them grandstanding all the time, then up to them and perhaps it should be legal. But I sort of am a bit withdrawn on the issue of them having kids or adopting, but our world is changing fast and there in many cases are a lot of heterosexual couples that should have been sterilized and banned from being bad parents. But one odd thing is like look at Will Smith’s kids and Angelina and Brad’s kids. Even with all their money something went wrong. So being able to have kids almost should be not a right in a sense.

 

Same sex attracted couples have been having children for many years, and in many countries adopting as well, the sky has not fallen in.

Are you also opposed to single parent families? Some of who may also be same attracted people

 

I am in agreement with same sex marriage but not for bringing up children. The child and the couple can expect plenty of emotional problems whether justified or not from many areas of society. Given that a great proportion of adoptive children are from backgrounds that already have less than normal circumstances, my feeling is they may possibly go from one problem life to another!

 

And I feel my "straight" marriage becomes a little de-valued if same sex marriages are considered "equal" in all regards to mine. But I cannot say what aspects should be "unequal".

What's on the table now in Thailand is only the less than separate and unequal partnership thingie.

 

Full marriage equality is unfortunately not on the table in Thailand. 

 

So the poll posits a choice that is not being offered. 

 

So of course go ahead and do the inferior partnership thing. 

 

It's better than nothing.

 

But it's a shame that Thailand can't embrace actual marriage equality. 

 

Maybe in 50 years. 

 

As usual Thailand is a more conservative place than many people realize. 

Edited July 12, 20205 yr by Jingthing

2 hours ago, bbi1 said:

It's illegal in 70 countries and has a death penalty in 12 countries.

The fact that it's illegal in those countries is a pretty weak argument, considering those coutrie's track record on issues like human rights, equality for women, etc. They aren't exactly countries that we should look up to or be inspired by. 

Edited July 12, 20205 yr by djayz

That raises the question: should foreign men married to Thai men be treated like foreign women married to Thai men (red carpet and open arms), or like foreign men married to Thai women (heaps of hoops to jump through)?

13 minutes ago, Myran said:

That raises the question: should foreign men married to Thai men be treated like foreign women married to Thai men (red carpet and open arms), or like foreign men married to Thai women (heaps of hoops to jump through)?

If he's married to a Thai man, then there is no need for money in the bank and all the extra requirements.

A Thai man's signature is 10x more powerful than a Thai woman's for the marriage visa. If Thai women had equal rights, then their wouldn't be any discrepancies for the visa requirements based on sex.

Actual marriage equality is not on the table in Thailand. 

Short of that as immigration laws are specific to marriage foreigners in these less than partnerships will have no immigration options at all based on those partnerships. 

Unless of course they explicitly change immigration law as well.

Don't assume that they will. 

Edited July 12, 20205 yr by Jingthing

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

are you Welsh? 

Funny you should ask.........

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

How would gay marriage benefit Thailand as a whole?

 

It may benefit a gay minority, but what would be the benefit for the whole of the country?

 

Has there been a benefit for all of the UK, Spain or Germany in having gay marriage?

 

As opposed to a benefit for a small gay minority?

Ah yes but has it  brought any lack of benefit.

12 minutes ago, bodga said:

Ah yes but has it  brought any lack of benefit.

It will likely benefit Thailand the same way straight marriages benefit Thailand.  I could also ask the opposite. What are the negative consequences to Thailand?

i Hope you are not in Thailand on s marriage visa.

 

 Are you the kind of person that says - I have enough to eat and don’t care about the rest of the people?

50 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Same sex attracted couples have been having children for many years, and in many countries adopting as well, the sky has not fallen in.

Are you also opposed to single parent families? Some of who may also be same attracted people

 

No, but honestly our world is messed up enough already. So as long as they are good people and make good parents and the kid or kids don’t do monkey see monkey do as are not conditioned to be gay thus growing up living according to how they were born then ok. I have gay acquaintances and so do my kids and I have nothing about people being born truly gay. I really have no problem there. 

It is Something of the sort in comparison that trailer trash parents will more than likely have trailer trash kids as the sole does not fall far from the tree. There are exceptions and that is what should be looked at. 

10 minutes ago, bodga said:

Ah yes but has it  brought any lack of benefit.

Of course if gay marriage would benefit the country as a whole then you would have to support gay marriage.

 

Looking at the UK, Spain or Germany I don't seen any great benefit to the country as a whole that gay marriage has brought.

 

Has there been any disadvantage to having gay marriage? Of course there are many disadvantages to non-gay taxpayers in allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers’ expense. 

 

Indeed in the US the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

 

So it costs the non-gay taxpayer hundreds of millions. Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

It will likely benefit Thailand the same way straight marriages benefit Thailand.  I could also ask the opposite. What are the negative consequences to Thailand?

i Hope you are not in Thailand on s marriage visa.

 

 Are you the kind of person that says - I have enough to eat and don’t care about the rest of the people?

yes

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course if gay marriage would benefit the country as a whole then you would have to support gay marriage.

 

Looking at the UK, Spain or Germany I don't seen any great benefit to the country as a whole that gay marriage has brought.

 

Has there been any disadvantage to having gay marriage? Of course there are many disadvantages to non-gay taxpayers in allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers’ expense. 

 

Indeed in the US the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

 

So it costs the non-gay taxpayer hundreds of millions. Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

 

 

 

Why should gay taxpayers subsidize straight ones? 

Before you say children be aware that sterile straight people can marry and many lesbians birth their own children. 

Sorry dude you present your arguments as logical when they are clearly coming from a place of deep bigotry. 

Edited July 12, 20205 yr by Jingthing

Nothing such as gay marriage, only equality before the law. The bit you do with  monks is not marriage. Signing the papers is what matters to the government. Basically a contract that give both partners rights and responsibilities under a legal system of family law. Inheritance, insurance, hospital visitation, end of life decisions, visas, adoption, goes on and on.

 

Of course two grown men (or women) should be allowed to enter into an economic contract.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course if gay marriage would benefit the country as a whole then you would have to support gay marriage.

 

Looking at the UK, Spain or Germany I don't seen any great benefit to the country as a whole that gay marriage has brought.

 

Has there been any disadvantage to having gay marriage? Of course there are many disadvantages to non-gay taxpayers in allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers’ expense. 

 

Indeed in the US the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

 

So it costs the non-gay taxpayer hundreds of millions. Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

 

 

 

Replace the word "gay" with the word "black", and read again... Maybe you would realize how discriminatory your text reads.

 

4 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Gay couples should be allowed to marry and be just as miserable as people in heterosexual marriages. 

That was my first thought as well, why should gay men be any happier than the rest of us lol. Actually my brother is gay and married, makes no difference to the rest of the family. We just want him to be happy.

5 hours ago, 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. 

So all single parented kids are a mess? I think its 2020 not 1950. Pretty much these days families come in all shapes and sizes...just like people.

By the same token, what is the basis for you being quite happy for the gay people subsidising the hetrosexual majority in the USA? To me, the equality and fairness aspects should take priority over fears people may have about people of a different orientation or or belief system.  

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Of course if gay marriage would benefit the country as a whole then you would have to support gay marriage.

 

Looking at the UK, Spain or Germany I don't seen any great benefit to the country as a whole that gay marriage has brought.

 

Has there been any disadvantage to having gay marriage? Of course there are many disadvantages to non-gay taxpayers in allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers’ expense. 

 

Indeed in the US the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

 

So it costs the non-gay taxpayer hundreds of millions. Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

 

 

 

Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

For the same reason gays subsidise YOUR kids schools, libraries and health care etc. etc. etc.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Why should gay taxpayers subsidize straight ones? 

Before you say children be aware that sterile straight people can marry and many lesbians birth their own children. 

Sorry dude you present your arguments as logical when they are clearly coming from a place of deep bigotry. 

Well, for a start because gays can not produce children and therefore can not produce future taxpayers.

 

If everyone was gay the whole idea of pensions, the generational contract where the future generations pay for the pension of the old, would be a non-starter. 

 

So from the outset being gay and living a gay lifestyle costs society money because gays can never produce future taxpayers.

 

It would be quite fair to tax gays on that justification alone.

 

However, gay marriage is another universe of subsidising gays with all kinds of benefits, that cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of Dollars.

6 minutes ago, keithathome said:

Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

For the same reason gays subsidise YOUR kids schools, libraries and health care etc. etc. etc.

Yes, and quite rightly so since gays can never produce children and therefore never produce future taxpayers.

 

Every gay person costs society money in the long run. That they should contribute in taxation is the least one could expect.

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well, for a start because gays can not produce children and therefore can not produce future taxpayers.

 

If everyone was gay the whole idea of pensions, the generational contract where the future generations pay for the pension of the old, would be a non-starter. 

 

So from the outset being gay and living a gay lifestyle costs society money because gays can never produce future taxpayers.

 

It would be quite fair to tax gays on that justification alone.

 

However, gay marriage is another universe of subsidising gays with all kinds of benefits, that cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of Dollars.

You just choose to totally ignore my points about children. Wow. Why not just come out now about what you are. I think we all see it. Playing games is unbecoming. 

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, and quite rightly so since gays can never produce children and therefore never produce future taxpayers.

 

Every gay person costs society money in the long run. That they should contribute in taxation is the least one could expect.

Sick. 

1 hour ago, godonnet said:

Replace the word "gay" with the word "black", and read again... Maybe you would realize how discriminatory your text reads.

 

It's completely different, blacks are a race, being gay is a sexual preference. Blacks still produce future taxpayers and therefore benefit society in the long run in terms of taxation. There is absolutely no reason whites should not subsidise blacks in terms of taxation, because blacks will contribute to society in terms of procreating and making future taxpayers. However, gays, do not procreate, do not create taxpayers. So, the long-term functioning of society, pension systems and such, would be impossible if everyone were gay. From a tax perspective, being gay is not something to be encouraged, subsidised or legitimised. 

 

That does not apply to blacks.

 

 

Australian Liberal (ie 'conservative', perhaps even - Heaven forbid - 'rightwing'!) senator Amanda Vanstone said a few years ago, when gay marriage was beginning to be seriously discussed in Australia: "All conservatives should be in favour of gay marriage. Marriage is an institution that strengthens society. A married couple can look after themselves independently of the State much more easily than two individuals separately. All conservatives should be in favour of this."

 

David Cameron, Conservative UK PM, said the same thing in almost identical words a few months later.

19 minutes ago, SoNowWhat said:

So all single parented kids are a mess? I think its 2020 not 1950. Pretty much these days families come in all shapes and sizes...just like people.

it doesn't make it right and yes, in single parent families there are often serious issues. Not sure what 1950 against 2020 has got to do with anything.  But that is a debate for another thread. 

I hope they hurry up and legalize same sex marriage.  Will save a lot of grief for many expats at the local IO, e.g.; insurance, funds in the bank, etc.