Thai Charter court rules that only heterosexual marriages are constitutional

[RJRS1301]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, the world moves on. And sometimes some countries or regions move in one direction and others in other directions. And sometimes they move back or even further back.

It seems you think gay marriages and gay couples adopting children is absolutely normal and should be accepted anywhere in this world. Why?

As far as I know some countries allow that a guy has several wives. And maybe when those guys with a couple of wives move to another country they will wonder why those other countries are so old-fashioned and don't allow such marriages? Shouldn't all guys all over the world be allowed to marry a couple of women? And if not, why not? Why should it be normal and standard everywhere that guys can marry guys but not allowed that guys marry a couple of women?

I think that has nothing to do with human rights. It has a lot to do with what the majority of people in that country at that time accept. Only because some people want something doesn't mean all people should support them.

You cannot even remain focussed on the topic considered by the Court, and to attmept to bolster your thoughts you run to false equivelences, which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This is not to do with polygamy or adoption, or animnals, however this is the picture you roll with, , in a vain attempt to enforce you bias. 

[Neeranam]

4 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Of course they will be cleverer

why?

[Rimmer]

A flame has been removed

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, brianthainess said:

Now I'm very concerned, my dog gets an erection and tries to hump my leg when he gets overly excited. DOWN Boy ! can I sue him for improper conduct ?

Perhaps you should see a psychologist, you might be giving off unconscious signals. I have a theory that dogs only are attracted to certain humans due to past life reasons. 

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, RJRS1301 said:

You cannot even remain focussed on the topic considered by the Court, and to attmept to bolster your thoughts you run to false equivelences, which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This is not to do with polygamy or adoption, or animnals, however this is the picture you roll with, , in a vain attempt to enforce you bias. 

What I try to explain to you is that what is normal for you is not normal for everybody else.

And I try to explain this to you with real world examples of different people in different countries who disagree very much about what is normal for them.

As I stated above: Personally I have no problem with gay couples and I don't even have a problem if they marry each other. What I don't like is that marriage opens many other doors like adopting children. I think people should choose how they want to live. If a guy want to sleep with a guy then he should do that. But they will never have children. That's the way it is. Accept it! 

"I want it all" is not a viable option - at least IMHO.

[kevc]

This from a country where about half of the celebrities you see on TV are homosexual or lesbian.

[RJRS1301]

9 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Of course they will be cleverer but there's more to life than academic results. I have no problem believing that gays and lesbians are more intelligent than the average population (they seem to me to be super-human in some ways, and perhaps that is the evolutionary intention). They are surely more likely to promote intelligence in their children than the average maw and paw. That doesn't mean those children will be more balanced, more capable to deal with life in general though. They will have skewed perspectives and abilities, and (assuming the children are heterosexual) will pick up an inappropriate set of behavioural cues.

 

At the moment, nobody knows what potentially damaging effects this might have on them or on society. We will have to wait till all these children have grown up to fully understand the unforeseen long-term consequences on mental health and social functioning. 

 

There are at least 75 studies dating back to 1995, which look directly at the social, emotional and mental health of children from same sex couple relationships. I think we say the evidence is fairly good longterm.

 

The Australian Institute of Family Studies’ 2013 review of the Australian and international research on same-sex parented families found that being raised by same-sex parents does not harm children, with children in such families doing as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers.3 In 2016, the Institute published a fact sheet on the same top

https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/207_09/10.5694mja17.00943.pdf

 

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What I try to explain to you is that what is normal for you is not normal for everybody else.

And I try to explain this to you with real world examples of different people in different countries who disagree very much about what is normal for them.

As I stated above: Personally I have no problem with gay couples and I don't even have a problem if they marry each other. What I don't like is that marriage opens many other doors like adopting children. I think people should choose how they want to live. If a guy want to sleep with a guy then he should do that. But they will never have children. That's the way it is. Accept it! 

"I want it all" is not a viable option - at least IMHO.

This about the Charter Court, try to remain focussed on the thread.

[Karma80]

1 minute ago, kevc said:

This from a country where about half of the celebrities you see on TV are homosexual or lesbian.

The hypocrisy is normalised here. Expect nothing less when sex toys and pornography are banned in a place where the primary tourism driver is the reputation of the sex industry.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

This about the Charter Court, try to remain focussed on the thread.

The article of the first post is about the charter court. The thread evolved from there.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, Karma80 said:

The hypocrisy is normalised here. Expect nothing less when sex toys and pornography are banned in a place where the primary tourism driver is the reputation of the sex industry.

And who cares?

If people want toys then I am sure they will find them. And if people want to have sex with any variation of LBGT+/- whatever I am sure they can also find it in Thailand. It's all there, enjoy life!

[ikke1959]

23 hours ago, godonnet said:

The problem is that LGBT+ don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

 

What is normal? It is also quite normal to get a divorce, should we ban thatas well? Do you have any studies to refer to that proves any disadvantages not having 2 fathers or 2 mothers in stead of a mother and a father? Several countries allows LGBT-adoption, so there should be papers out there on this.

 

 

There is a BIG difference in 2 consenting adults and a goat/dog/fish/horse/cow etc or children who absolutely cannot consent to anything. Comparing LGBT+ with child molesters and bestiality  only makes you look like an idiot. 

 

Replace LGBT (or LBGT as you wrote) with black or colored and read back again.

 

How about just accepting people like they are and also accept them having equal rights? Why should I not have the right to move together with my partner to Thailand? Why should I not have a say when my partner is sick and in hospital? Why should I not inherent my partner? Why should I not get the same economic security and rights as a heterosexual couple? 

That is exactly why they should now as soon as possible give an accord to the Civil union Bill. Than as a LGBT couple at least you can take take of your loved one. If it first needs a constitution change for man and woman to replace it in a person we are still decades away. Better first a bit than the rest will follow, Now we are / have nothing that protect the rights of the same sex couples

[ikke1959]

In the meantime somewhere in Europe there is a man with a wife and a second wife and 60 women and 30 poodles and that is allowed....

Edited November 19, 2021 by ikke1959

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What I try to explain to you is that what is normal for you is not normal for everybody else.

And I try to explain this to you with real world examples of different people in different countries who disagree very much about what is normal for them.

As I stated above: Personally I have no problem with gay couples and I don't even have a problem if they marry each other. What I don't like is that marriage opens many other doors like adopting children. I think people should choose how they want to live. If a guy want to sleep with a guy then he should do that. But they will never have children. That's the way it is. Accept it! 

"I want it all" is not a viable option - at least IMHO.

And women who are barren or too old can't have children either. So they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Get back to us when you have some scientific evidence to back up your contention that gay adoption is bad for children. But I do have to concede that you were correct about homosexual marriage not being a thing for the last 3.5 million years. That's because homo sapiens have only existed for the last 200,000.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What I try to explain to you is that what is normal for you is not normal for everybody else.

And I try to explain this to you with real world examples of different people in different countries who disagree very much about what is normal for them.

As I stated above: Personally I have no problem with gay couples and I don't even have a problem if they marry each other. What I don't like is that marriage opens many other doors like adopting children. I think people should choose how they want to live. If a guy want to sleep with a guy then he should do that. But they will never have children. That's the way it is. Accept it! 

"I want it all" is not a viable option - at least IMHO.

Until not too long ago it wasn't consider "normal" by most people for White and Black people to marry each other. So I guess laws that prohibited interracial marriages were okay? 

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, Neeranam said:

This is not about living and loving, it's about the sacrament of matrimony. Don't mix religion and sex. 

So, if a couple goes to city hall to get married, do they have to sacrifice a goat or perform some other religious ritual?

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, the world moves on. And sometimes some countries or regions move in one direction and others in other directions. And sometimes they move back or even further back.

It seems you think gay marriages and gay couples adopting children is absolutely normal and should be accepted anywhere in this world. Why?

As far as I know some countries allow that a guy has several wives. And maybe when those guys with a couple of wives move to another country they will wonder why those other countries are so old-fashioned and don't allow such marriages? Shouldn't all guys all over the world be allowed to marry a couple of women? And if not, why not? Why should it be normal and standard everywhere that guys can marry guys but not allowed that guys marry a couple of women?

I think that has nothing to do with human rights. It has a lot to do with what the majority of people in that country at that time accept. Only because some people want something doesn't mean all people should support them.

First of all in western nations marriage is a contract between 2 people.

And you keep on citing this word "support". If you mean people's attitudes, who cares? It's the law that is concerning.

Also, in Thailand, men are allowed to have what is called "minor wives" in addition to the main wife.

Edited November 19, 2021 by placeholder

[mikebike]

On 11/18/2021 at 5:34 AM, Tarteso said:

Moved to 18th century Forum  News.

So... 165 countries out of 195 are still in the 18th century?

 

This is a current LGBTQ issue. It is not even close to being resolved.

[mikebike]

On 11/18/2021 at 6:18 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

They didn't allow same sex marriages. But same sex relationships are allowed and common. What's the problem?

Personally I have no problem with people of all shades of LBGT+/- whatever. Live and let live and all that.

 

But why do many people pretend those relationships are just as normal as male/female relationships? I.e. when two gay guys adopt children. Who is the mother? How about breast feeding and all those natural things? It seems some people think all people should be allowed to do anything. Really?

 

What's next? Can I marry my favorite pet? Can we adopt children? You might think I am crazy and that has nothing to do with reality. But think twice. Not long ago nobody would have imagined gay guys marrying and adopting children. Now it's not just described as normal. Now people who don't think it is normal are attacked for their position.

 

How about accepting people like they are. Hetero people can accept that LBGT exist. And LBGT should also accept that not everybody wants to support anything what they want.

What an anachronistic load.

 

1. They are "just as normal" because they have existed just as long as hetro relationships albeit at lower percentages.

 

2. Who cares who is the "mother" and not all hetro mothers take on the "traditional" mothering role.

 

3. Many hetro mothers do not engage in "breastfeeding and all those natural things" 

 

4. Is you pet a human? If no then, no, you cannot marry it. If yes, you have bigger problems.

 

5. The LGBTQ community has been imagining same-sex marriage since marriage was a thing. Just because YOU haven't imagined it does not mean others have not.

 

6. How big of you to concede that the LGBTQ community exists, but they do not need your approval.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by mikebike

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

How big of you to concede that the LGBTQ community exists, but they do not need your approval.

It seems you want the approval from lots of people. Otherwise you wouldn't try so hard in this forum to convince others that what you want is normal and should be accepted everywhere. 

[mikebike]

On 11/18/2021 at 8:26 AM, Pedrogaz said:

There are only two sexes.

Then you JKR have both missed the point.

[mikebike]

On 11/18/2021 at 9:04 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Equal right to do what?

Simple:

 

Equal rights to exist and enjoy the same societal benefits as other human beings.

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, mikebike said:

On 11/18/2021 at 8:26 AM, Pedrogaz said:

There are only two sexes.

Then you JKR have both missed the point.

Or some people just don't want to accept nature. Or how else is it possible that scientist used only male and female since forever? I don't remember learning in school that scientist need a box for another sex because male or female is not enough. 

[mikebike]

On 11/18/2021 at 9:13 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe first all existing laws should be amended to refer to married male/female couples. After that then a law can allow other couples to marry each other - without having automatically also the right to adopt children, etc.. 

Contrary to the implications of what you posted here, I bet you are aware that not all hetro couples make good, or even remotely acceptable parents... 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Simple:

 

Equal rights to exist and enjoy the same societal benefits as other human beings.

So when will I have those same societal benefits with my favorite twins?

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If a guy want to sleep with a guy then he should do that. But they will never have children.

How is a 2 guy couple any different from a hetro couple who have fertility issues?

[mikebike]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you want the approval from lots of people. Otherwise you wouldn't try so hard in this forum to convince others that what you want is normal and should be accepted everywhere. 

No. Exactly the opposite. I really don't care what peeps do or think, as long as no one else is harmed, and I wish everyone to enjoy the benefits of society.

[mikebike]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Or some people just don't want to accept nature.

You are aware that animals, IN NATURE, engage in same sex coupling, right?

[mikebike]

14 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Or some people just don't want to accept nature. Or how else is it possible that scientist used only male and female since forever? I don't remember learning in school that scientist need a box for another sex because male or female is not enough. 

Somehow you missed where science learned more and now distinguishes between "biological sex" and "gender".

 

If that's the case, maybe you missed out on a few other scientific advancements... Did you know science now backs evolution over creation? 

[KhaoYai]

9 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

It’s about acceptance and allowing people to live their lives as they see fit! Who the hell are you to tell a gay couple that they can’t get married?!

I think you'd better read my post again - you got that 100% wrong.