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

[Fairynuff]

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

Again, I realise that this is not a view shared by many others. 

Unfortunately it IS a view shared by too many people, out of ignorance really.

[Fairynuff]

On 7/12/2020 at 3:58 PM, 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?

Equality is not a benefit, it’s a human right. As for Thailand “benefitting”, yes, it would give the impression of a growing and modernising society.

[NorthernRyland]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It may come around again, but at this point in time the chances of that are slim I would think.

Maybe it's further off but something needs to come after trans, I just don't know what will be yet. People are looking for the next barrier to break down but so much has been undone I don't know what's left. 

[Fairynuff]

On 7/12/2020 at 4:14 PM, 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. 

No surprises here..... d****head.... yep.

we've yet to find anyone that actually do like

Edited July 13, 2020 by Fairynuff

[NorthernRyland]

16 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

Is it a privilege not to be murdered just because you’re black?

But this just isn't true. Go look at the FBI crime stats. This has been known forever now.

[Fairynuff]

On 7/12/2020 at 7:05 PM, godonnet said:

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

 

I expect he’d feel the same.

[Fairynuff]

On 7/12/2020 at 8:09 PM, Logosone said:

Yes, and quite rightly so since gays can never produce children

You actually believe that gay people can’t have kids? Really?????????????????????

[Fairynuff]

On 7/12/2020 at 8:16 PM, Logosone said:

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.

 

 

You have a very weird obsession with tax.... and that’s just one of your issues.

[NorthernRyland]

26 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

Equality is not a benefit, it’s a human right.

if that's true then how do we protect against pedophilia? 

[brianp0803]

It is always possible to find some research study that proves something that you want. I’m sure you could find research that proves the world is flat and we never went to the moon. The fact that someone published a paper stating this does not make it true. If multiple independent research teams involving thousands of participants came to the same conclusion, then I would believe it

 

My Social Security payments are not a generational contract. If I invested the money given to Social Security since I was age 20, then my Social Security when I’m 65 would be quite a bit higher. If I contribute $1000 when I’m 20 years old and then collect my principal plus interest when I’m 65 it should’ve grown at least five times as much. 
Some of the same arguments people are using now against gay marriage is were also used against interracial marriages before. Just the words of change slightly. But human rights are human rights.

 

In a heterosexual relationship does the man generally want sex more than a woman? If men generally want more sex than women, then gay couples probably have more sex than straight couples.

 

If straight men were not allowed to marry, do you think they would be dating and having sex with a lot more different women? Ability to marry create stability in a relationship

 

Civilized people create laws and rules to respect people. And sometimes respecting people may cost money, but that is a civilized thing to do. Unfortunately, not all people have civilized behavior and thoughts.

I laugh every time I see the benefits of marriage is to create future taxpayers.  Marriage is about people professing their love and making a legal public declaration of their intent to plan a life together. 
 

Historically marriage was to create a stable unit for raising a child. I wonder what percentage of people are raised to the age of 18 with the birth mother and father. My guess would be below 30%

 

Many countries would benefit greatly by a 20% or more reduction of the population. There might be some readjustments in the labor force, but the overall quality of life would improve.

[NorthernRyland]

1 minute ago, Fairynuff said:

because blacks will contribute to society in terms of procreating and making future taxpayers

Government doesn't keep stats but it's almost certain that blacks in America must be tax negative contributors given their income brackets/welfare use vs other races.

[Fairynuff]

21 hours ago, Why Me said:

But when it comes to family issues like adoption it should be recognized that a child raised by a mother and a father fare better than one raised by two parents of the same sex (yes, studies show this). Not to mention that traditional couples can procreate, which is a pretty important activity for our species.

The only thing stopping me agreeing completely with you is that it’s absolute nonsense. Show us these studies, and where they came from 

[Fairynuff]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I will acknowledge that gay male couples face great difficulties having any biological connection to potential children. But its easy for women. 

There’s always co parenting. That ought to please Logosone , imagine it, 2 mummies and 2 daddies.

[Fairynuff]

6 hours ago, chainarong said:

And a referendum divides a country, a good example Ireland and Australia , I didn't think there was so much hate in Australia.

 

The christian lobby spent tens of millions on their campaign of hate.

[alyx]

After browsing through the comments, my only reaction is ....????

[Fairynuff]

5 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Having or obtaining,,, how do 2 females or 2 males generate offspring?

Sheltered life huh?

[Why Me]

43 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

The only thing stopping me agreeing completely with you is that it’s absolute nonsense. Show us these studies, and where they came from 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/

Quote: These studies have also demonstrated the negative psychological, educational, and social effects on children who have been deprived of growing up in a home with both biological parents who are married to each other.

 

Now, go to your room. No, supper for you, Fairy, for opening your mouth without googling first.

[Fairynuff]

1 minute ago, Why Me said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/

Quote: These studies have also demonstrated the negative psychological, educational, and social effects on children who have been deprived of growing up in a home with both biological parents who are married to each other.

 

Now, go to your room. No, supper for you, Fairy, for opening your mouth without googling first.

If you dig deep enough you’ll find every twisted study you want to help you validate your bigotry. You need to do better

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, brianp0803 said:

It is always possible to find some research study that proves something that you want. I’m sure you could find research that proves the world is flat and we never went to the moon. The fact that someone published a paper stating this does not make it true. If multiple independent research teams involving thousands of participants came to the same conclusion, then I would believe it

 

My Social Security payments are not a generational contract. If I invested the money given to Social Security since I was age 20, then my Social Security when I’m 65 would be quite a bit higher. If I contribute $1000 when I’m 20 years old and then collect my principal plus interest when I’m 65 it should’ve grown at least five times as much. 
Some of the same arguments people are using now against gay marriage is were also used against interracial marriages before. Just the words of change slightly. But human rights are human rights.

 

In a heterosexual relationship does the man generally want sex more than a woman? If men generally want more sex than women, then gay couples probably have more sex than straight couples.

 

If straight men were not allowed to marry, do you think they would be dating and having sex with a lot more different women? Ability to marry create stability in a relationship

 

Civilized people create laws and rules to respect people. And sometimes respecting people may cost money, but that is a civilized thing to do. Unfortunately, not all people have civilized behavior and thoughts.

I laugh every time I see the benefits of marriage is to create future taxpayers.  Marriage is about people professing their love and making a legal public declaration of their intent to plan a life together. 
 

Historically marriage was to create a stable unit for raising a child. I wonder what percentage of people are raised to the age of 18 with the birth mother and father. My guess would be below 30%

 

Many countries would benefit greatly by a 20% or more reduction of the population. There might be some readjustments in the labor force, but the overall quality of life would improve.

That's true of course.

 

But we both know I'm right. Don't we?

 

And, btw, I'm also right about contributions not being sufficient to fund pensions. Governments go to the capital markets to borrow to finance pensions. It's just a fact. It doesn't work the way you think it does. Look it up.

 

And this equating gay rights with the noble cause of civil rights for blacks, it's not working. I get it, you want that glory. But you'll never get it. Because, you see, being gay is not the same as being black. Blacks don't have a choice, they are born black. There is no gay gene. Being gay is a sexual preference. 

 

Are you seriously suggesting gays are more promiscuous because they can not marry? How many gays have taken upt the chance to marry? Tell me. What percentage in the US? UK? Germany? No, it is at the very core of being gay, it is an exalted urge for sex.

 

Maybe as civilised people we have to accept gay marriage. And we will. But do not pretend it is a benefit to society.

 

Nobody here has been able to list one single tangible reason why gay marriage is good for a country. 

 

We accept it. Maybe. But is not anything good. From our perspective. From yours, that's for you to decide.

 

 

[Why Me]

5 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

If you dig deep enough you’ll find every twisted study you want to help you validate your bigotry. You need to do better

Behave yourself, Fairy!! Do not attack the messenger. The study was published by the NIH.

 

And it's common sense, not bigotry, to observe that man + woman does not equal man + man or woman + woman. The environments are different. And, of course, this impacts the child, or anyone for that matter, in that environment. Maybe negatively, maybe even positively in some cases.

 

However, we've evolved to be born to a mother and father and to be nurtured by the two. So the negative finding of the study in the case of children being reared by same-sex couples is hardly surprising.

 

I see the distress on your face that PC has been betrayed by science. Happens. Here's a biscuit. Now off to your room. No more internet tonight.

 

[Fairynuff]

7 minutes ago, Why Me said:

No more internet tonight

You’d be better off with no more internet ever.

your “studies” are generally commissioned by, funded by, and carried out by Christian/family lobbies. If you have keep pushing studies on me then at least let it be from an impartial source. Of course you wouldn’t know where to look, nor would you get the results you crave.

[brianp0803]

Some lesbian couples may use a sperm bank and raise a child from infantry to adult. But gay couples are only able to adopt. I would love to see a study of gay and lesbian couples that raise a child starting under the age of 2 through adulthood and compare the child’s progress compared to a straight couple under the same circumstances.

 

A heterosexual couple would be the first option for a child needing adoption. Then they would probably give single females as 2nd option for a child. For “problem children” that cannot be adopted they will probably allow a gay couple to adopt.

Since gay peoples only choice for adopting is a child with problems, then it may be no surprise that the child does not achieve as well.

This is the same as dividing a classrooms Into lower achievers and high achievers.  The teacher of a higher achievers class brags at the progress his students makes and how he must be a great teacher.

 

Most studies can prove anything if they carefully select the participants to achieve their bias.  They can pick the data that supports the claim they are trying to prove. 
 

they have been numerous studies of certain drugs that claim to help about coronavirus. There are also numerous studies that prove the same drugs do not help about coronavirus. How can both studies be correct?

[balo]

Civil partnerships for straight and gays. Marriages are not necessary , its outdated. Just write a contract so in case you regret it you can get out of it asap. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by balo

[Why Me]

2 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

You’d be better off with no more internet ever.

your “studies” are generally commissioned by, funded by, and carried out by Christian/family lobbies. If you have keep pushing studies on me then at least let it be from an impartial source. Of course you wouldn’t know where to look, nor would you get the results you crave.

Fairy, your mother (lovely woman) and I (alpha male) have done our best to nurture in you a thoughtful outlook. If you find a point of view disagreeable try and contest it with facts, not insinuations of prejudice.

 

Honestly, Fairy, your mother and I are disappointed. You wouldn't want us to give you up for adoption do you where you're taken in by a dad who wears a dress and a mom who wears one too?

[Why Me]

13 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

 

A heterosexual couple would be the first option for a child needing adoption. Then they would probably give single females as 2nd option for a child. For “problem children” that cannot be adopted they will probably allow a gay couple to adopt.

Since gay peoples only choice for adopting is a child with problems, then it may be no surprise that the child does not achieve as well.

This is the same as dividing a classrooms Into lower achievers and high achievers.  The teacher of a higher achievers class brags at the progress his students makes and how he must be a great teacher.

Makes sense what you say that we might be comparing unequal cohorts. And I would think that a couple of loving parents (of whichever sex) is better than none at all.

 

But still there's a difference between same sex households and traditional ones. No decree can make them equal.

[jak2002003]

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

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

Sure, like most straight marriages don't fail and there are hardly any straight single parent families.

 

What about the couples with the straight father is committing domestic violence or the drug addicts parents.....?

 

You would not think their children would be better off with a same sex couple just because there is not one man and one woman? 

 

What children need is a secure home with loving family that can care for them...be that whatever sex.  

 

 

[Fairynuff]

52 minutes ago, Why Me said:

Fairy, your mother (lovely woman) and I (alpha male) have done our best to nurture in you a thoughtful outlook. If you find a point of view disagreeable try and contest it with facts, not insinuations of prejudice.

 

Honestly, Fairy, your mother and I are disappointed. You wouldn't want us to give you up for adoption do you where you're taken in by a dad who wears a dress and a mom who wears one too?

See what happens when you come off your meds?

[Why Me]

9 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

See what happens when you come off your meds?

Aw, come on, we're having fun:-)

[A1Str8]

Nobody cares if it's good for the country or not. It's between the people. 

[Why Me]

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

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

Agree 100% with what you say. Except for the part about adoption. I know what life is like for children in orphanages and shelters. Having loving parents (of whatever sex) is better than none.

 

Still your point that the ideal environment to rear a child is one with parents of opposite sex (preferably the child's biological ones) is indisputable. Provided they aren't forked up in some way (drugs, crime, illness) but that's a tiny minority.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Why Me