Thai Charter court rules that only heterosexual marriages are constitutional

[Neeranam]

12 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

I'm of the thought and heart that I have no right to tell others how they can live and love. What we need is more love directed living in this cold rationalised world not more rationale. As for state control of who is to be loved I disagree with that premise entirely.

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

[JeffersLos]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

a child in school to have no mother but two fathers

Poor kid. ???? 

[Neeranam]

17 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

The issue should be around human rights, not sexual orientation or gender. Equal rights is the issue

No, the issue is about the law, or rather Sangha-State relations. 

Equal rights can never happen due to psychical, psychological and spiritual differences between men and women and transgenders. 

[Neeranam]

11 hours ago, godonnet said:

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

Why? It has nothing to do with colour.  

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

History of same-sex unions

"Same-sex unions were known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4]

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

 

And can you please share with us some links pointing to the issue of whether or not same sex marriage existed in the Stone Age?

In the scale of 3.5 millions years the periods you are quoting are absolutely miniscule so Onemorefarang is probably correct in stating 0.00000x%.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

In the scale of 3.5 millions years the periods you are quoting are absolutely miniscule so Onemorefarang is probably correct in stating 0.00000x%.

Well I'm not sure where he got that 3.5 million years from. Home Sapiens have only been in existence around 200,000 years. That said, where did onemorefarang provide evidence that there were no homosexual unions among stone-age people? Maybe you've got some?

[KhaoYai]

5 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Wow! You should go back to the Stone Age so you can be with your prehistoric opinions on subject matters you clearly know nothing about! 

Like so many - presuming that todays thinking is necessarily correct. Being more liberal isn't always correct and successive generations do not always gain more rational thought.

[MaiDong]

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Are you criticizing Thailand? 

 

I wonder what country you come from; the USA didn't make it legal in all states until just 6 years ago. The UK 7 years ago. 

 

Thailand is usually about 20-40 years behind the West in many areas, so in this area, the country is doing pretty well considering it is a developing nation.  

I'm criticizing humanity, but anyway, you question my reason, then go on to back me up with your 'Thailand is usually about 20-40 years behind the West in many areas' ????

[Bluespunk]

22 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

But why do many people pretend those relationships are just as normal as male/female relationships?

No ones pretending.
 

They are. 

[RJRS1301]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Fact is that any child which grows up with two fathers and no mother will suffer a lot. We can argue that this shouldn't be like that. But in reality it will be like that. So why would two gay guys adopt a child knowing that that child will suffer? It's egoism of the gay guys. They obviously don't care.

Read some longitude research conducted in UK, USA and Australia on the children in same sex relationships, then comment from a point of some acquired knowledge, instead of presenting your bias as fact.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122420957249

These data include 2,971 children with same-sex parents (2,786 lesbian couples and 185 gay male couples) and over a million children with different-sex parents followed from birth. The results indicate that children raised by same-sex parents from birth perform better than children raised by different-sex parents in both primary and secondary education.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by RJRS1301

[jacko45k]

22 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

This is an interesting point. Personally I am turned on by seeing two women kissing or having sex, whereas I cringe when I see two men kissing or holding hands. I'm not saying it means anything but is my innate reaction.

A reaction that if you voiced it, would bring down the vengeance of the wokes upon you. Don't get me wrong, I too find it distasteful and I recall sending a complaint in to a UK TV channel along those lines... the response I got made me feel rather 'isolated'..... 

[ikke1959]

18 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]

CNN has an article that states that samesex weddings boosted the economy with 3,8 billion dollars since gay marriage was introduced 5 years ago. And Prayuth and cronies are not willing to boost the economy ???

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, ikke1959 said:

CNN has an article that states that samesex weddings boosted the economy with 3,8 billion dollars since gay marriage was introduced 5 years ago. And Prayuth and cronies are not willing to boost the economy ???

That was just Elton John.....

[sirineou]

On 11/18/2021 at 3:18 AM, MaiDong said:

Puangpetch Hengkham and Permsak Saeung absolutely should be able to have their marriage recognised, what century do we live in anyway?

Don't answer that, it was rhetorical..open to legitimate sarcasm. 

Indeed they should, 

but if I understand this correctly., the constitutional court decides on the constitutionality of an issue. If there is a provision in the constitution that prohibits same sex marriage,  then they are correct to kick this back to the political mechanism for changing the constitution. 

 

[RJRS1301]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Indeed they should, 

but if I understand this correctly., the constitutional court decides on the constitutionality of an issue. If there is a pronderstandingvision in the constitution that prohibits same sex marriage,  then they are correct to kick this back to the political mechanism for changing the constitution. 

 

That is my understanding from reading various sources.

 

[alyx]

10 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Wow! You should go back to the Stone Age so you can be with your prehistoric opinions on subject matters you clearly know nothing about! 

How can one go back when they have never left in the first place : )

[alyx]

7 hours ago, Neeranam said:

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

But marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a contract between two human beings. It is only recently, in terms of humanity existence, that the Roman Catholic church held up the concept. along with other religions

[Boomer6969]

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.

Was about about to [try to] say exactly what you have written here. Thanks for this post.

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Rubbish, not all of us agree with what's going on at the moment.  I have gay people in my family and one gay friend - I have no problems with accepting their sexuality as long as its not 'in my face'. I would defend their rights (normal rights) in exactly the same way as I would for anyone in the family.

 

I think that gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to marry each other if they so wish and in doing so, be afforded the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples - why not?  What I don't support is their insistence that they are normal - they are not.  That does not mean they are a lesser being than I am, it just means that they are not normal and should not/cannot be afforded some of the things that a hetrosexual couple are - adoption for example.  Same sex couples cannot produce children without outside intervention - perhaps they should accept that, it kind of goes with the territory.  Nature provided a woman with breasts so she could feed her babies. Nature did not provide a man with the means to give birth - end of.

 

I will never believe that a child, being brought up in a same sex relationship is in a healthy situation.  It must screw with their understanding and will almost certainly leave them open to taunts and bullying by their peers - known causes of mental health problems later in life.  I accept that some children are not brought up correctly in a normal family situation but I like to think that's the exception rather than the rule.

 

I consider myself to be fairly liberal but I also think there are limits and that social norms have their place. As well as gay/lesbian couples wanting acceptance perhaps they should also do some accepting themselves?  One of the reasons I rarely watch mainstream TV these days is because I'm sick of watching 2 blokes kissing in the middle of some series or other that I'd previously enjoyed - all in the name of being PC.  Pop stars with beards wearing dresses and make-up, drag queens, camp weather presenters and all sorts of odd behaviour seems to actually be being promoted. Such stuff literally makes me want to throw up, don't I have rights? Shouldn't gay/lesbian people also accept that? There should be gay/lesbian TV channels.

 

Like the poster you're having a go at, I also wonder where it will all end, what's next?

 

You will note I did not mention trans people above - that's a whole other subject.  In the UK we now have a growing number of trans people wishing to be changed back!!!  I think there's a good case for considering whether or not the whole matter is phsycological rather than genetic.

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about! Gays haven been around as long as mankind so therefore being gay is just as “normal” as being heterosexual, just as much as it is natural because mankind is part of nature and therefore anything we do is by definition natural! As a matter of fact, homosexuality is a perfectly normal variation of human sexual orientation. At least that’s what the expert on the subject matter say, as opposed to you, Mr. Backyard Amateur The rest of your post in regards to what is an healthy environment for a kid is pretty much BS! 

[pacovl46]

6 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Like so many - presuming that todays thinking is necessarily correct. Being more liberal isn't always correct and successive generations do not always gain more rational thought.

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?!

[pacovl46]

Just now, pacovl46 said:

Like so many - still too ignorant to see what’s what!
 

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?!

 

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, alyx said:

How can one go back when they have never left in the first place : )

So true!!!

[brianthainess]

23 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'm not sure a cuddle would count as consent to sex/marriage in a court of law.

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 ?

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour 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?!

Ok, what else should be allowed?

Should people be able to marry more than one person? Or maybe 3 women marry 2 guys? It should all be possible, correct?

[RJRS1301]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, what else should be allowed?

Should people be able to marry more than one person? Or maybe 3 women marry 2 guys? It should all be possible, correct?

once again  a false equivalence.

The Charter Court was not even considering that matter. You just like to troll on the matter about which you show very little knowledge or ability to even unbderstand the basics, except your own biase.

You do understand that until Henry V111, (in western societyt) there was not even a civil divorce procedure with out the church o f Rome allowing it. The world subsequently moved on, regarding the concept and social construct of marriage?

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

8 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

once again  a false equivalence.

The Charter Court was not even considering that matter. You just like to troll on the matter about which you show very little knowledge or ability to even unbderstand the basics, except your own biase.

You do understand that until Henry V111, (in western societyt) there was not even a civil divorce procedure with out the church o f Rome allowing it. The world subsequently moved on, regarding the concept and social construct of marriage?

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.

[jak2002003]

10 hours ago, Neeranam said:

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

Are you saying you have to be religious to get married? 

 

So people who don't believe in God can't get married either?

 

How about keeping religion out of other peoples lives? 

 

It should be a basic right for 2 adults of any gender nix to get married if they want. 

 

It's for security and legal reasons as well as emotional, and also gives protection to couples finances and assets in the even one of them dies or they split up.

 

How can anyone think that is wrong? 

 

 

[Mr Derek]

3 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Read some longitude research conducted in UK, USA and Australia on the children in same sex relationships, then comment from a point of some acquired knowledge, instead of presenting your bias as fact.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122420957249

These data include 2,971 children with same-sex parents (2,786 lesbian couples and 185 gay male couples) and over a million children with different-sex parents followed from birth. The results indicate that children raised by same-sex parents from birth perform better than children raised by different-sex parents in both primary and secondary education.

 

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. 

[Boomer6969]

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 ?

Propose.