Thai Charter court rules that only heterosexual marriages are constitutional

[RJRS1301]

5 hours 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.

Many heterosexuals murder their offspring also. 

Recently another male murdered his wife 3 children under 5 and then suicided, using a murder stat does not support your reasoning. 

I am well aware of a fair percentage of both hetrerosexual men and women who have no interest in breeding

[Chad3000]

57 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Many heterosexuals murder their offspring also. 

Recently another male murdered his wife 3 children under 5 and then suicided, using a murder stat does not support your reasoning. 

I am well aware of a fair percentage of both hetrerosexual men and women who have no interest in breeding

Wow, what a condescending remark. If I were female I'd report it.

 

No interest in BREEDING as if we humans are cattle.

 

You got exactly what you deserved Mr homosexual man.

 

Breeders how infuriating.

 

The homosexual agenda right there for yas all. Contempt from the outside.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Chad3000

[ikke1959]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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.

I totally agree with you... male and female are different and also in approaching things. Sometimes a kid want something and one of the parents disagree and the other with a different view talks with her husband or his wife and and the kid get a more equal answer. And personally I will not adopt a kid. There are several reasons for but on the other hand I can unerstand that people want to have kids. I think a lot of samesex coules don't really want to adopt kids too. In fact now the Civil Union Bill gives a legalized partnership and personally I think that is enough. Later other issues can be added

[KhaoYai]

7 hours 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've never denied that other species engage in homosexual activity.  Humans steal and engage in violent behaviour and so do Apes so using your theory its acceptable for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature?

 

Genetic or biological faults occur in all species.

 

The purpose of having male and female sexes in our species is re-production - do you know of any primates where 2 of the same sex can reproduce? Relating this issue to other species that exhibit the same abnormal behaviour is irrelavent.

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

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.

If you want to take it to ridiculous levels - OK then, can same sex parenting take place without components from both sexes?  Do you have evidence of male eggs or female sperm?

[NanLaew]

23 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

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.

If you want to take it to ridiculous levels - OK then, can same sex parenting take place without components from both sexes?  Do you have evidence of male eggs or female sperm?

Look who's being ridiculous (and a tad overheated) now?

[KhaoYai]

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Look who's being ridiculous (and a tad overheated) now?

Ridiculous claims are met with ridiculous answers and I'm quite calm thank you.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

I've never denied that other species engage in homosexual activity.  Humans steal and engage in violent behaviour and so do Apes so using your theory its acceptable for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature?

 

Genetic or biological faults occur in all species.

 

The purpose of having male and female sexes in our species is re-production - do you know of any primates where 2 of the same sex can reproduce? Relating this issue to other species that exhibit the same abnormal behaviour is irrelavent.

You're the one claiming that what's "natural" should be the guidelines for human behavior because ,according to you, homosexual behavior is not natural. It's your reasoning the elevates the "natural" over the unnatural.

 

As for genetic and biologic faults and the purpose of male and female sexes...

Do you understand that in nature, if survival is the guideline, the only way to evaluate whether something fulfills that criterion is whether it increases the number of genes encoding certain traits or not.

Now you may think it's a cut-and-dried case that homosexual behavior can't posssibly fulfill that criterion. But you'd be wrong. There was a brilliant biologist named William Hamilton who mathematically established the existence of something called kin selection. It would be to the genetic advantage of certain siblings that didn't reproduce so long as their assistance to family members resulted in the increase of enough individuals carrying their genes

 

Kin selection

Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction.[1] Kin altruism can look like altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection. Kin selection is an instance of inclusive fitness, which combines the number of offspring produced with the number an individual can ensure the production of by supporting others, such as siblings.

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

 

This of course would provide a "natural" explanation of why there are homosexual human beings. Not that it's really necessary.

[KhaoYai]

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're the one claiming that what's "natural" should be the guidelines for human behavior because ,according to you, homosexual behavior is not natural. It's your reasoning the elevates the "natural" over the unnatural.

Yes

[pacovl46]

23 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

That was not the issue raised in your post. You clearly stated:

 

'Who the hell are you to tell a gay couple that they can’t get married?' Which I did not and never have said.

 

To answer your 'amended' post - I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is that a child should be brought up by both parents, male and female.  That is what nature intended and if you have a problem with it - tough.  I would go further and say that in my opinion, a child would be better off with a single parent than 2 of the same sex.

My first statement was meant more generally. I should've worded it better. My bad. In regards to gays raising kids you're completely wrong! 

[pacovl46]

23 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Another misguided assumption that new thinking is better.

Another misguided assumption that your way of thinking is better!

[pacovl46]

23 hours ago, mikebike said:

Well that was uncalled for.

Not at all! 

[pacovl46]

12 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

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.

I think you replied to the wrong guy because I'm totally with you on that! Your reply should've gone to Onemorefarang and KhaoYai.

[KhaoYai]

10 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

My first statement was meant more generally. I should've worded it better. My bad. In regards to gays raising kids you're completely wrong! 

In your opinion.

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Yes

But that's just what you accused me of doing after I pointed out that one of the 2 species closest to homo sapiens engages frequently in homosexual behavior. Namely justifying such behavior on the grounds it's natural. Here's what you wrote:

 

"I've never denied that other species engage in homosexual activity.  Humans steal and engage in violent behaviour and so do Apes so using your theory its acceptable for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature?"

 

According to the criterion that you invoked to disqualify homosexuality on the grounds of being unnatural the answer would be yes it is" ok for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature".

Edited November 20, 2021 by placeholder

[Atlantis]

18 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

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.

15 hours 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. 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

At least you're explicitly ignoring the evidence now. 

 

14 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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.

I am inclined to think the vast majority of those studies do support what is stated by RJRS1301, and I actually intend to read quite a few of them when I get round to it. However, I don't think the (implied) conclusions drawn by RJRS1301 and others are as robust as they may think - and it's got nothing to do with the researchers themselves. I'll try to be brief:

The same-sex partners adopting children face considerable barriers in forming families, the biggest are 1. biological (obviously) 2. legal (adoption)
Those same-sex parents in the studies must necessarily have overcome the considerable hurdles of either surrogacy or adoption.
The sample of same-sex parents are therefore strongly self-selected for those with considerable motivation to have children.

This cannot be feasibly and/or ethically controlled in-study.

Compare this to the population of available heterosexual parents who can procreate while high / drunk / both high and drunk, in Las Vegas, before reaching legal adulthood. Maybe not all at once all the time! But the "lower" range of the heterosexual parental quality spectrum thus ranges all the way to the gutter. This is clearly not the case for same-sex parents.

Same-sex parents must not only really want to have children; the very fact that they begin the surrogacy or legal adoption process forces them into family planning. This is not so for an urban teenage female who got knocked up by her frequently delinquent male partner.

To the extent that same-sex couples must strongly desire to become parents and must plan well ahead of time, it would not be surprising to find that compared to the median heterosexual couple, longer-term social and educational outcomes are not worse.

You are not comparing apples with apples.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Atlantis
Edited for readability

[KhaoYai]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

But that's just what you accused me of doing after I pointed out that one of the 2 species closest to homo sapiens engages frequently in homosexual behavior. Namely justifying such behavior on the grounds it's natural. Here's what you wrote:

 

"I've never denied that other species engage in homosexual activity.  Humans steal and engage in violent behaviour and so do Apes so using your theory its acceptable for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature?"

 

According to the criterion that you invoked to disqualify homosexuality on the grounds of being unnatural the answer would be yes it is" ok for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature".

You fail to comprehend that it is not uncommon for members of any species to engage in deviant activity.  Some may call it unnatural behaviour, some may say abnormal - how ever its labelled it is certainly not as nature intended.  Before you misquote me yet again I will repeat, I do not consider homosexual humans as lesser beings and I do agree that there should be no impediment to them getting married. However homosexuality is not the norm and their sexual behaviour could never be considered as normal.  I've had this argument with my gay brother on several occasions - he claims he is normal.  According to the Oxford dictionary, he is not.

 

1.

conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"

 

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

 

I don't understand why gay people have this problem with being called abnormal - its almost always taken in a derogatory sense when that is quite often not the case. If I was born with 3 eyes I would not consider that to be normal - even though I might be able to see perfectly well.  If I believed that Vladimir Putin was a saint, would that be considered normal?

 

Your constant references to the animal kingdom holds no weight whatsoever - yes, deviant behaviour goes on in other species - that does not make it normal.

 

I believe that children have a right to be bought up in a 'normal' relationship, given normal balanced values that in my opinion can only be achieved by having both parents.  Single parents may well bring their children up well, as may gay couples and both may give them all the love in the world.  But have they had all the learnings of life that they could or should have? Will love alone equip them with all they need to go out into the world? I don't think so.  Do they get taunted and bullied because they have gay parents - I know very well they do, despite what was previously claimed by another poster. He may not have experienced it but I personally know someone who suffered that.  I myself have experienced taunting because of my brother's sexuality - there are bad people out there you know?

 

Away from the dingly dell where everything's perfect, there is a real world with dangers everywhere. I had to teach my son to fight - much to his mother's annoyance.  Women are more placid and many don't believe in violence, even as a defence but they don't live in the male world where quite often, if you don't stand up for yourself you can suffer consequences - would a lesbian mother teach her son to fight?

 

Whether you like it or not, homosexual behaviour is not normal - it is however accepted in many cultures and in quite a lot of ways, gays are moving towards equality - as they should.  But children have rights too and a fundemental right of any child is to have normal parentage.

 

You can quote your 'studies' 'vast majorities' and 'overwhelming facts' all you like - it won't change my views.  Natural is natural and deviance is deviance. What nature intended however, is not always what happens - people are born with all sorts of differences, things go wrong but there is a norm.

 

Will more and more gay couples be allowed to adopt children?  Almost certainly - we live in a rapidly liberalising society and one day we may learn that we've been too liberal.

 

I consider this topic played out.

Edited November 20, 2021 by KhaoYai

[RJRS1301]

12 hours ago, Chad3000 said:

Wow, what a condescending remark. If I were female I'd report it.

 

No interest in BREEDING as if we humans are cattle.

 

You got exactly what you deserved Mr homosexual man.

 

Breeders how infuriating.

 

The homosexual agenda right there for yas all. Contempt from the outside.

Can humans be bred?

To breed is to have babies, whether you're a human or a hermit crab. ... The word breed comes from the Old English bredan which means to "bring young to birth," but also "cherish,” which is how most people feel about their offspring.

 

breed - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › breed

 

 

 

Yes, humans can technically be bred like animals. The process is called eugenics. Like breeding animals, “desirable” traits in humans can become more common among the next generations if the people who show the traits are given higher chance of reproduction than those who don't.

Edited November 20, 2021 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I think you replied to the wrong guy because I'm totally with you on that! Your reply should've gone to Onemorefarang and KhaoYai.

Yeah was supporting your comments 

[OneMoreFarang]

6 hours ago, Atlantis said:

 

I am inclined to think the vast majority of those studies do support what is stated by RJRS1301, and I actually intend to read quite a few of them when I get round to it. However, I don't think the (implied) conclusions drawn by RJRS1301 and others are as robust as they may think - and it's got nothing to do with the researchers themselves. I'll try to be brief:

The same-sex partners adopting children face considerable barriers in forming families, the biggest are 1. biological (obviously) 2. legal (adoption)
Those same-sex parents in the studies must necessarily have overcome the considerable hurdles of either surrogacy or adoption.
The sample of same-sex parents are therefore strongly self-selected for those with considerable motivation to have children.

This cannot be feasibly and/or ethically controlled in-study.

Compare this to the population of available heterosexual parents who can procreate while high / drunk / both high and drunk, in Las Vegas, before reaching legal adulthood. Maybe not all at once all the time! But the "lower" range of the heterosexual parental quality spectrum thus ranges all the way to the gutter. This is clearly not the case for same-sex parents.

Same-sex parents must not only really want to have children; the very fact that they begin the surrogacy or legal adoption process forces them into family planning. This is not so for an urban teenage female who got knocked up by her frequently delinquent male partner.

To the extent that same-sex couples must strongly desire to become parents and must plan well ahead of time, it would not be surprising to find that compared to the median heterosexual couple, longer-term social and educational outcomes are not worse.

You are not comparing apples with apples.

That is an interesting view. Thanks!

[alyx]

19 hours ago, jvs said:

Just maybe some peoples attitude helps to create bullies?

 

Ooops…you mean that bullying is justifiable?

 

[placeholder]

On 11/20/2021 at 12:59 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Where did I give any impression that I care about the vast majority of Americans? IMHO many Americans are just nuts. I.e. about half of Americans (or was it more?) believe that god created the world about 6000 years ago or something like that. How can anybody respect people like that?

Yes, I know there are a few smart Americans. But definitely not many of them.

Are you aware that those same Americans who believe that the world was created 6000 years ago are the ones who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage and gay adoption? Like you, they believe it's unnatural. 

 

[Atlantis]

21 hours ago, BritManToo said:

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

 

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

You're really not kidding with the Marxism are you!

Marriage: spiritually, I'm with you. As are the vast majority of men I would suspect. Practically, it is still the best institution we have for the benefit of our children -  despite the silly-high rate of divorce across all societies.

Men typically cannot be trusted to hang around long-term for the benefit of their biological offspring if there were no social mechanism to enforce / strongly encourage something that resembles marriage in its current forms.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Are you aware that those same Americans who believe that the world was created 6000 years ago are the ones who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage and gay adoption? Like you, they believe it's unnatural. 

 

No, they believe in god, or their version of god. And it seems most of them think their god doesn't like gay guys. But I have to admit I am not up to date with their believes and I don't really want to learn more about those crazy people.

[ikke1959]

9 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Whether you like it or not, homosexual behaviour is not normal - it is however accepted in many cultures and in quite a lot of ways, gays are moving towards equality - as they should. 

I don't agree with you and stdies showed it is natural insome groups;

Bonobos form a matriarchal society, unusual among apes. They are fully bisexual: both males and females engage in hetero- and homosexual behavior, being noted for female–female sex in particular, including between juveniles and adults. Roughly 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females.

 

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Homosexual_behavior_i...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mikebike]

On 11/19/2021 at 9:34 PM, Mr Derek said:

That gays are cleverer than heteros on average - that's my conclusion based on fact that they populate certain fields above the norm - literature, the arts, architecture, science, philosophy, politics etc - the examples are too many to cite. Really, the proportion of gays in these fields is astonishing and of course some of greatest geniuses in history have evidently been gay. The effect is so significant that I assume that nature intended it that way so as to free up a certain group from the burden of procreation so they can benefit society in intellectual/creative fields. I give you Shakespeare, who ran away from the family he never really wanted.

 

By this token, I suggest that gays not only play a significant role in society, but that they have been crucial to human evolutionary development - precisely by not procreating. There's a revolutionary theory for you.

 

Wow. That is a lot of strange conjecture for a obviously simple phenomenon.

 

Historically theatre, and the arts in general, were the only places the "miscreants" could work in relative peace and security.

 

Today (or really a couple yesterdays ago, when I was working in the arts), what i noticed was that the older generation tends to open doors and mentor the younger generation making the path of theatre and the arts in general an easier and very rewarding path for many. This BTW, is not dissimilar to the door-opening and mentoring process in business resulting in that field being predominantly white males.

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, Atlantis said:

You're really not kidding with the Marxism are you!

Marriage: spiritually, I'm with you. As are the vast majority of men I would suspect. Practically, it is still the best institution we have for the benefit of our children -  despite the silly-high rate of divorce across all societies.

Men typically cannot be trusted to hang around long-term for the benefit of their biological offspring if there were no social mechanism to enforce / strongly encourage something that resembles marriage in its current forms.

My Brit wife told me I would never see our 4 kids again, and stuck to it (and I didn't want to fight her).

Can't see marriage as anything helping fathers stick around, about 50% of divorced women want the kids to themselves (then they can tell the kids dad didn't want them, and start them on hating him).

 

Now if marriage gave men the absolute right to 50% custody, and forget maintenance payments (which is effectively just another tax on working dads), that would be different.

 

As it stands marriage is completely worthless to men and their children.

Edited November 21, 2021 by BritManToo

[BritManToo]

17 minutes ago, mikebike said:

what i noticed was that the older generation tends to open doors and mentor the younger generation

Did you mean 'groom'?

[mikebike]

20 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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.

Because you had the privilege and good fortune to grow up with a mother and father I can see why you would have this attitude.

 

My old man disappeared when I was 5 in 1967, my mom never remarried. Mom went off to work full-time and became "dad", and my grandmother was at home like "mom". 2 strong females. I didn't have "the opportunity to ask a female and a male parent", yet it has really made zero difference in my life. Kids are amazingly resilient. 

[mikebike]

11 hours ago, Atlantis said:

 

I am inclined to think the vast majority of those studies do support what is stated by RJRS1301, and I actually intend to read quite a few of them when I get round to it. However, I don't think the (implied) conclusions drawn by RJRS1301 and others are as robust as they may think - and it's got nothing to do with the researchers themselves. I'll try to be brief:

The same-sex partners adopting children face considerable barriers in forming families, the biggest are 1. biological (obviously) 2. legal (adoption)
Those same-sex parents in the studies must necessarily have overcome the considerable hurdles of either surrogacy or adoption.
The sample of same-sex parents are therefore strongly self-selected for those with considerable motivation to have children.

This cannot be feasibly and/or ethically controlled in-study.

Compare this to the population of available heterosexual parents who can procreate while high / drunk / both high and drunk, in Las Vegas, before reaching legal adulthood. Maybe not all at once all the time! But the "lower" range of the heterosexual parental quality spectrum thus ranges all the way to the gutter. This is clearly not the case for same-sex parents.

Same-sex parents must not only really want to have children; the very fact that they begin the surrogacy or legal adoption process forces them into family planning. This is not so for an urban teenage female who got knocked up by her frequently delinquent male partner.

To the extent that same-sex couples must strongly desire to become parents and must plan well ahead of time, it would not be surprising to find that compared to the median heterosexual couple, longer-term social and educational outcomes are not worse.

You are not comparing apples with apples.

 

"This cannot be feasibly and/or ethically controlled in-study."

 

What are you on about? Just flip the control group. It would be very easy to filter out the "gutter" hetros, as you refer to them, then compare the remaining hetros who "really want children" to their gay counterparts.