Thai Charter court rules that only heterosexual marriages are constitutional

[BritManToo]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, I did some research on polls and/or laws in English speaking countries and other western european countires  And it turns out that in all of them there is overwhelming support for gay people being allowed to adopt. Given that most of the members of Thaivisa are clearly native english speakers or from western europe, its seems most would find your views offensive. And yet you share them with us anyway.

Sounds like one of those polls published on TV.

99% of Thai people love the general ........ etc.

 

I'm totally convince most people in the world oppose anyone that is even slightly different.

This is human nature.

[RJRS1301]

11 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I’ve read that part! My issue lies in what you’ve wrote about the “healthy environment” or lack thereof when it comes to gay couple having kids! 

Firstly there are 75 well researched peer reviewed studies dating back to 1995 regarding the longer term social and educational outcomes of children from same sex relationships. Their well being on all scores was similar to and on many occassions higher then children from heterosexual parents.

Stigma is a negative factor on their development, this caused by adults and bias from others.

However I doubt many have read these reports let alone analysed their findings, unfortunately.

 

This however is not subject which the Charter Court had to rule on, it was around the constitutional matter regarding the definition of marriage.

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, mikebike said:

But same sex coupling in nature is NOT an opinion, it is fact.

Many studies dating back to the 1900s support you

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Nature provides for the creation of a child by people of opposite sexes. Gay and lesbian people are not lesser beings but they are the victims of a genetic disorder

Genetic disoder? That hypothesis was debunked many decades ago.

Most same sex attracted people are equally fertile to their heterosexaul counterparts, and many have born or fathered children in the "traditional manner" .

The only "victims" are the ones impacted by stigma and bais

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

What a very mean and selfish attitude. 

 

I would hope if people adopted children or took care of children from their partners previous relationship thru would be a compassionate and nice person to consider those children their own....

That takes compassion and empathy, which appears to be somewhat in short sullpy in some posts

[RJRS1301]

4 hours ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

indeed thailand tolerate those sick ladyboys, but do not legalise them and their "gender change" rrubish. and that is how it should be. tolerance but no acceptance.

 

The Charter Court was asked to rule on a constitutional matter on the definition marriage, not anything you have mentioned

 

However, I hope you understand that transgender persons are not a "Thai" only matter, but date back to very ancient times acroos the globe, and in some cultures were not only held in high regard, but frequenly advisors to the rulers in ancient Sth American, middle eastern and pacific cultures. 

 

 Hijras on the Indian subcontinent and kathoeys in Thailand have formed trans-feminine third gender social and spiritual communities since ancient times, with their presence documented for thousands of years in texts, which also mention trans male figures. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

This article is about the history of transgender people worldwide. For the book by Susan Stryker, see Transgender History (book).

Transgender history begins with transgender people (in the broadest sense, including non-binary and third gender individuals) in cultures worldwide since ancient times. As this history is prior to the coining of the modern term "transgender", opinions of how to categorize these people and identities can vary. This history also begins prior to the mid-twentieth-century usage of "gender" in American psychology and associated conceptual apparatus including the notions of "gender identity" and "gender role".^[1][2]

Edited November 20, 2021 by RJRS1301

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How to address those bullies?

Pretend they don't exist?

Sure, it's bad when people and children do that. But that is part of life. I was bullied in school because I was wearing shoes with 4 stripes because my parents didn't see the point in paying 4 times as much for those shoes with 3 stripes.

I could solve that problem by buying those 3 stripe shoes which were in fashion at that time because I didn't like the bullying. 

Children with two fathers and no mother can't just buy something to solve that problem. Is it fair? No! Is it reality? I bet it is.

Do ya think that just possibly public attitudes have shifted since you were a child?  That kids adopt the adopt the attitudes of their parents? You tihink attitudes towards gay people are the as they were when you were a kid? Or even close? Is opposing gay marriage a winning political issue anymore? You don't seem to have much use for actual evidence. When it's pointed out that most studies show kids of same sex parents do just fine, you just ignore them and continue to make assertions without offering evidence to back those assertions up. Most of us are  21 years into the 21st century. Time for yo to stop projecting and join the vast majority.

[KhaoYai]

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Where did I give any impression that I care about the vast majority of Americans? IMHO many Americans are just nuts.

Agreed, look how many voted for a nutcase.

[placeholder]

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

Equal right to do what? Equal rights that a guy can kiss a guy or a woman a woman? Equal rights for all children that they have a right to have a father and a mother and that they have the right to be breastfed? 

Rights will always have boundaries. Maybe about humans and animals or age restrictions or whatever. And it makes sense that there are boundaries. The only question is where exactly those boundaries are.

I just noticed this comment. So children have a right to a father? How do think that gets enforced? Will the children police take children from single mothers and give them to heterosexual married couples?  

Children have a right to be breastfed? I guess that means that adopted infants are mostly suffering a gross violation of their rights? And that mothers have no right to refuse to breastfeed? Or do you propose drafting an army of wetnurses in the furtherance of social justice?

Edited November 20, 2021 by placeholder

[placeholder]

On 11/19/2021 at 6:31 AM, 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.

 

 I've yet to see the chief proponents of the apposing viewpoint even acknowledge the existence of such research. Instead, they continue with their assertions supported only by the most incontrovertible of bulwarks: personal bias.

[KhaoYai]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

And it turns out that in all of them there is overwhelming support for gay people being allowed to adopt.

There's a lot of credence being given to 'vast majorities'  and 'overwhelming support' here, as if to say that makes them right.  I believe a certain gentleman who started the largest conflict the world has ever seen and was therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people, also had 'overwhelming support'.  Was he right then? 

 

Are there not plenty of examples in history where the 'vast majority' have turned out to be wrong? Attitudes and laws change, so called progress, but that does not necessarily make them better.  Progress in science?  Well that's a double edged sword There have been many advances that have benefited the human race and other's that have done so at the expense of other species.  Then again, another advance in science killed or seriously injured 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Ten years ago I was told to cut all fat from my diet, 2 weeks ago my doctor said most fats are now considered to be OK - just avoid certain ones. Attitudes and laws change, science advances - its all called progress and people usually accept it as better when in fact, some of it is not.

 

Attitudes towards gay people have become more liberal and I can't see any problem with them getting married but I personally and I repeat, personally, do not think they should be allowed to adopt children.  As with other 'advances' that have turned out to be wrong, 25 years from now we may well find that the countries that allowed them to adopt, reverse that decision - nobody knows.

 

Aliens looking down on this planet would probaly have a real laugh at the human race and our 'progress' - we invent machines to do our work and then we find we have to go to the gym to exercise!  Bringing things bang up to date, we have polluted the air that we need to exist and are now killing our planet through climate change. We discharge raw sewerage into water sources and places where we swim ...........................and that's progress?

 

Now, I expect a plethora of statements asking what this subject has to to with Hitler or nuclear bombs and that's because the protagonists of gay families either can't or won't see the point - so before you do and as I've said from the very start of this debate - its about people assuming that changing attitudes and so called 'progress' is always superior.  You can call it 'antiquated', out of touch or whatever else you like but if you study the history of mankind, you will find we've made some glaring mistakes over the centuries. Some mistakes we have had to go back on - some we should have and some we are yet to tackle.

 

What is (supposed) to be being discussed here is a matter of law, law our great leaders tell us, driven by changing attitudes and opinions.  The law itself is not immune from mistakes and wrong decisions. I myself was almost the victim of a recently introduced draconian law a few years ago. Its a personal matter and not one I wish to discuss here but my case was dismissed.........why? Because the prosecution barristers realised that I was rasing some serious issues and if I won my case, their good little earner would be overturned by case law.  That particular law will, I am absolutely sure, be overturned at some point - its wrong and its a mistake, not all new things are better.

 

Progress is not always for the better but the one thing that is, is that much of the world has freedom of speech.  That conveys the right to have an opinion.  The gay adoption protagonists here might note that as far as I can see, those of us with the opposite opinion have made our points without resorting to slagging and name calling.  Neither have we made ridiculous posts for the sake of it or twisted people's words.

 

How much better this discussion would be if the same courtesy was shown by all.

[OneMoreFarang]

46 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I just noticed this comment. So children have a right to a father? How do think that gets enforced? Will the children police take children from single mothers and give them to heterosexual married couples?  

Children have a right to be breastfed? I guess that means that adopted infants are mostly suffering a gross violation of their rights? And that mothers have no right to refuse to breastfeed? Or do you propose drafting an army of wetnurses in the furtherance of social justice?

I think if people want to have children then they should care about those children. Many of us have experienced that life if difficult when parents don't care or care too little.

In a ideal world all children would have loving parents who would care about them until they leave home. Obviously I know this is no ideal world. I don't know the current laws in many countries but I know there was a time when only heterosexual married couples could adopt children. Why? Did they authorities hate single mothers and single fathers? Or were these laws and regulations set to try to do the best for the children?

Obviously it's a bad idea to take away children from their loving parents - even if those parents are not heterosexual and likely not perfect. But at least we should try to give (newborn) children the best possible care. For me that means children should be adopted by male/female couples who are healthy and care and have enough money to care for their children.

[jvs]

4 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

There's a lot of credence being given to 'vast majorities'  and 'overwhelming support' here, as if to say that makes them right.  I believe a certain gentleman who started the largest conflict the world has ever seen and was therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people, also had 'overwhelming support'.  Was he right then? 

 

Are there not plenty of examples in history where the 'vast majority' have turned out to be wrong? Attitudes and laws change, so called progress, but that does not necessarily make them better.  Progress in science?  Well that's a double edged sword There have been many advances that have benefited the human race and other's that have done so at the expense of other species.  Then again, another advance in science killed or seriously injured 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Ten years ago I was told to cut all fat from my diet, 2 weeks ago my doctor said most fats are now considered to be OK - just avoid certain ones. Attitudes and laws change, science advances - its all called progress and people usually accept it as better when in fact, some of it is not.

 

Attitudes towards gay people have become more liberal and I can't see any problem with them getting married but I personally and I repeat, personally, do not think they should be allowed to adopt children.  As with other 'advances' that have turned out to be wrong, 25 years from now we may well find that the countries that allowed them to adopt, reverse that decision - nobody knows.

 

Aliens looking down on this planet would probaly have a real laugh at the human race and our 'progress' - we invent machines to do our work and then we find we have to go to the gym to exercise!  Bringing things bang up to date, we have polluted the air that we need to exist and are now killing our planet through climate change. We discharge raw sewerage into water sources and places where we swim ...........................and that's progress?

 

Now, I expect a plethora of statements asking what this subject has to to with Hitler or nuclear bombs and that's because the protagonists of gay families either can't or won't see the point - so before you do and as I've said from the very start of this debate - its about people assuming that changing attitudes and so called 'progress' is always superior.  You can call it 'antiquated', out of touch or whatever else you like but if you study the history of mankind, you will find we've made some glaring mistakes over the centuries. Some mistakes we have had to go back on - some we should have and some we are yet to tackle.

 

What is (supposed) to be being discussed here is a matter of law, law our great leaders tell us, driven by changing attitudes and opinions.  The law itself is not immune from mistakes and wrong decisions. I myself was almost the victim of a recently introduced draconian law a few years ago. Its a personal matter and not one I wish to discuss here but my case was dismissed.........why? Because the prosecution barristers realised that I was rasing some serious issues and if I won my case, their good little earner would be overturned by case law.  That particular law will, I am absolutely sure, be overturned at some point - its wrong and its a mistake, not all new things are better.

 

Progress is not always for the better but the one thing that is, is that much of the world has freedom of speech.  That conveys the right to have an opinion.  The gay adoption protagonists here might note that as far as I can see, those of us with the opposite opinion have made our points without resorting to slagging and name calling.  Neither have we made ridiculous posts for the sake of it or twisted people's words.

 

How much better this discussion would be if the same courtesy was shown by all.

You could be wrong also?I really think children are a lot better off being in a loving environment instead of some care home.

Our opinions differ but that does not mean either ones of us is a bad person(or a good person for that matter)

Using examples that are totally of topic?I have one.I do not agree with violent criminals to be allowed to be parents,kids learn from example.Should everyone that has a license be allowed to drive?Should everyone be allowed to own a gun?

There will always be things we do not agree with but in my opinion doing something that

does not harm any one should be allowed.

 

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

You don't seem to have much use for actual evidence. When it's pointed out that most studies show kids of same sex parents do just fine, you just ignore them and continue to make assertions without offering evidence to back those assertions up.

And you assume that we should accept those studies are correct.  I can't and won't speak for the poster you are refering to but I can make my own mind up on such matters without reading studies.  I only revert to studies if I am considering a subject that I know nothing about.  I don't need a study to voice an opinion or to see that something is against nature - despite the previous references to gay animals etc.  The nature of human beings is male + female = children.  Male + male or female + female cannot produce children and nor, in my opinion can they pass on the knowledge and behaviour that children get from a balanced and natural relationship.

 

Yes, there are some bad male/female parents but lets deal with them, not use them as an excuse to promote same sex parents.

[KhaoYai]

5 minutes ago, jvs said:

I really think children are a lot better off being in a loving environment instead of some care home.

And on that point I would agree with you and yes, I could be wrong - as I've said from the start, its my opinion .

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

There's a lot of credence being given to 'vast majorities'  and 'overwhelming support' here, as if to say that makes them right.  I believe a certain gentleman who started the largest conflict the world has ever seen and was therefore responsible for the deaths of millions of people, also had 'overwhelming support'.  Was he right then? 

 

Are there not plenty of examples in history where the 'vast majority' have turned out to be wrong? Attitudes and laws change, so called progress, but that does not necessarily make them better.  Progress in science?  Well that's a double edged sword There have been many advances that have benefited the human race and other's that have done so at the expense of other species.  Then again, another advance in science killed or seriously injured 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Ten years ago I was told to cut all fat from my diet, 2 weeks ago my doctor said most fats are now considered to be OK - just avoid certain ones. Attitudes and laws change, science advances - its all called progress and people usually accept it as better when in fact, some of it is not.

 

Attitudes towards gay people have become more liberal and I can't see any problem with them getting married but I personally and I repeat, personally, do not think they should be allowed to adopt children.  As with other 'advances' that have turned out to be wrong, 25 years from now we may well find that the countries that allowed them to adopt, reverse that decision - nobody knows.

 

Aliens looking down on this planet would probaly have a real laugh at the human race and our 'progress' - we invent machines to do our work and then we find we have to go to the gym to exercise!  Bringing things bang up to date, we have polluted the air that we need to exist and are now killing our planet through climate change. We discharge raw sewerage into water sources and places where we swim ...........................and that's progress?

 

Now, I expect a plethora of statements asking what this subject has to to with Hitler or nuclear bombs and that's because the protagonists of gay families either can't or won't see the point - so before you do and as I've said from the very start of this debate - its about people assuming that changing attitudes and so called 'progress' is always superior.  You can call it 'antiquated', out of touch or whatever else you like but if you study the history of mankind, you will find we've made some glaring mistakes over the centuries. Some mistakes we have had to go back on - some we should have and some we are yet to tackle.

 

What is (supposed) to be being discussed here is a matter of law, law our great leaders tell us, driven by changing attitudes and opinions.  The law itself is not immune from mistakes and wrong decisions. I myself was almost the victim of a recently introduced draconian law a few years ago. Its a personal matter and not one I wish to discuss here but my case was dismissed.........why? Because the prosecution barristers realised that I was rasing some serious issues and if I won my case, their good little earner would be overturned by case law.  That particular law will, I am absolutely sure, be overturned at some point - its wrong and its a mistake, not all new things are better.

 

Progress is not always for the better but the one thing that is, is that much of the world has freedom of speech.  That conveys the right to have an opinion.  The gay adoption protagonists here might note that as far as I can see, those of us with the opposite opinion have made our points without resorting to slagging and name calling.  Neither have we made ridiculous posts for the sake of it or twisted people's words.

 

How much better this discussion would be if the same courtesy was shown by all.

And once again, you ignore the evidence.

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think if people want to have children then they should care about those children. Many of us have experienced that life if difficult when parents don't care or care too little.

In a ideal world all children would have loving parents who would care about them until they leave home. Obviously I know this is no ideal world. I don't know the current laws in many countries but I know there was a time when only heterosexual married couples could adopt children. Why? Did they authorities hate single mothers and single fathers? Or were these laws and regulations set to try to do the best for the children?

Obviously it's a bad idea to take away children from their loving parents - even if those parents are not heterosexual and likely not perfect. But at least we should try to give (newborn) children the best possible care. For me that means children should be adopted by male/female couples who are healthy and care and have enough money to care for their children.

And once again you ignore the evidence.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

And you assume that we should accept those studies are correct.  I can't and won't speak for the poster you are refering to but I can make my own mind up on such matters without reading studies.  I only revert to studies if I am considering a subject that I know nothing about.  I don't need a study to voice an opinion or to see that something is against nature - despite the previous references to gay animals etc.  The nature of human beings is male + female = children.  Male + male or female + female cannot produce children and nor, in my opinion can they pass on the knowledge and behaviour that children get from a balanced and natural relationship.

 

Yes, there are some bad male/female parents but lets deal with them, not use them as an excuse to promote same sex parents.

At least you're explicitly ignoring the evidence now. 

 

So on the one hand you're aware that in nature there are gay animals but on the other, when it comes to humans it's only natural when it's male plus female?  Maybe you don't believe in the theory of evolution? That humans are descended from other species?

Those of us who do subscribe to that  theory know that bonobos, one of the two species of primate closest to humans engage in flagrant homosexual behavior with great frequency and Gusto.

[OneMoreFarang]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Those of us who do subscribe to that  theory know that bonobos, one of the two species of primate closest to humans engage in flagrant homosexual behavior with great frequency and Gusto.

Let me guess, people who support homosexuals know those bonobos, and everybody else looks at most other animals who do mostly what humans do: male/female.

I didn't read "your" study because I am sure everybody can find a study which confirms what he thinks. There are even lots of studies for climate deniers. There are some things which we experience with our friends and acquaintances. We don't need studies to learn about everything.

[jvs]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

At least you're explicitly ignoring the evidence now. 

 

So on the one hand you're aware that in nature there are gay animals but on the other, when it comes to humans it's only natural when it's male plus female?  Maybe you don't believe in the theory of evolution? That humans are descended from other species?

Those of us who do subscribe to that  theory know that bonobos, one of the two species of primate closest to humans engage in flagrant homosexual behavior with great frequency and Gusto.

I have a lot of homing pigeons and i see gay behaviour almost every day.Female pigeons will pair up with other females and both will lay eggs.Of course the eggs are not fertilized but i replace them

with good eggs.They raise the young as their own.This is also seen in male pigeons but not as frequent,they will also hatch eggs if you give them any and raise the young.

[Mr Derek]

12 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

Sorry to read what you think.... How many children are being in a 1 parent famly, because of divorc or deased partner?? Or what about parents who divorce and get the kids away from their father/mother.??? Will they grow up in a normal live?? Or kids who are being beaten up by their stepmothers/fathers as we can read regularly here in Thailand??

I think kids are better of in a loving surrounding and they don't care if there are 2 fathers or mothers.  

Why suppose that same-sex parents are more loving? I'm sure some do make a special effort in order to prove themselves 'normal', but it's a fair biological assumption that they have lower parental instinct. I have heard many gays profess they have no interest in children - especially lesbian women, who seem to be extremely conflicted on the subject. E.g. that California lesbian couple who drove their entire family over a cliff to their deaths. Of course that's an extreme case but it shows the pressures involved in fighting biology.

Banning same-sex parenting can also serve to protect them from themselves.

[jvs]

3 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

but it's a fair biological assumption that they have lower parental instinct. I have heard many gays profess they have no interest in children - especially lesbian women,

So you actually know a lot of gay people and still you have this attitude?

It seems to me it is your assumption that they have lower parental instinct,or can you provide a link?

 

[Mr Derek]

7 minutes ago, jvs said:

So you actually know a lot of gay people and still you have this attitude?

It seems to me it is your assumption that they have lower parental instinct,or can you provide a link?

 

Link? It's my opinion based on experience. I didn't bother writing up a paper for the Journal of Evolutionary Sociology.

I won't ask for a link to your opinion that gays have equal or higher parental instinct, because there isn't one.

 

Apologies as always to the exceptions, but I stand by the generalisation.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Mr Derek

[HappyGoLuckyLife]

If hetero parents were so much more superior than same-gender parents, then we wouldn't have need of the various child protection agencies, foster care programs, etc., that we have all over the world. And we had them WAY before the talk of same-gender marriage even began.

 

I don't give a damn if it's two men, two women, one of each, (be it trans or not) as long as kids are being raised with love, compassion, and know they have a sense of worth. I'm all for it. We have enough <deleted> raising <deleted> to last several lifetimes.

If two adults love are care about each other enough to one to get married. They should. And whomever was on this thread like in ever post in the first few pages was going on a "kids need mother's who can breastfeed them" stop it, you have a teat fetish or something. PLENTY of kids raised big and strong without suckling on a boob. 

[jvs]

19 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

I won't ask for a link to your opinion that gays have equal or higher parental instinct, because there isn't one.

Where did i say that? I never said anything like that.

[jvs]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How to address those bullies?

Pretend they don't exist?

Sure, it's bad when people and children do that. But that is part of life. I was bullied in school because I was wearing shoes with 4 stripes because my parents didn't see the point in paying 4 times as much for those shoes with 3 stripes.

I could solve that problem by buying those 3 stripe shoes which were in fashion at that time because I didn't like the bullying. 

Children with two fathers and no mother can't just buy something to solve that problem. Is it fair? No! Is it reality? I bet it is.

Just maybe some peoples attitude helps to create bullies?

 

[ikke1959]

42 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Why suppose that same-sex parents are more loving? I'm sure some do make a special effort in order to prove themselves 'normal', but it's a fair biological assumption that they have lower parental instinct. I have heard many gays profess they have no interest in children - especially lesbian women, who seem to be extremely conflicted on the subject. E.g. that California lesbian couple who drove their entire family over a cliff to their deaths. Of course that's an extreme case but it shows the pressures involved in fighting biology.

Banning same-sex parenting can also serve to protect them from themselves.

I don't say that samesex couples are more loving.... The can be as good and normal as normal parents with father and mother, but it seems that the idea is that samesex couples are bad for the kids to grow up and that is why I reacted that in normal father mother couples a lot of problem occur too, as we all could read here in Thailand about the beating to death of kid, drowning or even forgotten on the beach....... As long as couple man/woman/ man/man/woman/woman love and take care of their child there will be never a problem, although some people suggest otherwise

[BritManToo]

3 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Agreed, look how many voted for a nutcase.

First a nutcase, second a person with dementia ........ gotta laugh!

 

As for marriage, let's get rid of all marriage, it's completely outdated.

Edited November 20, 2021 by BritManToo

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

As long as couple man/woman/ man/man/woman/woman love and take care of their child there will be never a problem, although some people suggest otherwise

Can we agree that male and female humans are different in many ways? And I mean different and not one is better than the other. Personally I learned other things from my mother than I learned from my father. And with some issues I preferred to ask my mother and with others my father. Kids in same sex couples don't have the opportunity to ask a female and a male parent. Obviously there are always other people and not just parents. But the main contact persons, especially for young children, are the parents.

We can argue if that difference is enough of a difference to allow same sex couples to adopt children. Maybe yes, maybe no. But I hope we can agree there is a difference and children have fewer options with same sex parents.

[NanLaew]

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

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?

Since natural vaginal birth and breast feeding are not mandatory for the genetic female of our species, I would argue that same sex parenting doesn't need lactation and/or only one parental penis to be a success. Put it this way, there's at least double the love compared to the all too common single-parent option.