Constitutional Court’s full verdict enrages LGBT community, rights defenders

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Its actually not that complicated. You've presented a lame excuse. Maybe interracial marriages are too complicated too?

Interracial marriages are capable of producing offspring. Same sex marriages are not. If you want to highlight infertile marriages as a reason to allow same sex marital union, do you think same sex marriages improve the reproductive odds?

 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Many people do want to marry. Excluding same sex marriages is discrimination.

You might as well tell me it's discriminatory for society to exclude marriage to a computer program. As I said, I have no issues with the private dealings of individuals. . . If a man wants to kid himself he's a woman, for example, I really couldn't care less and I would never try to deny him (her) the right to live their life in that way. . . but equally, don't deny me the right to say that (wo)man will always be just a man that's hacked himself to look like a woman, and has physically and chemically castrated himself. Reality sucks for some folk.

 

I personally think the constitutional ruling is merely affirmation of a social imperative that's as old as humanity itself, and don't find anything wrong with that. In many ways find Thailand to be a very liberal, tolerant and accepting society, for example, issuing visas to christian missionary groups even though they often spread vile and false commentary about Buddhism. . . and isn't that tolerance why so many LGBTYUAPXYZ+++ types are attracted to Thailand in the first place?

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, djayz said:

I say let them get married. Why should only the heterosexuals suffer and be unhappy? ????

 

 Missus ("real" woman) and I ("real" bloke) have been together about 15 years now, no marriage and one beautiful, happy little kid, who we both dote on. This whole topic, not just marriage, but also the whole gender, sexuality issue, has been chewed over and over and over again ad infinitum. 

 

If "they" are allowed to get married, which I have absolutely no opinion on as I don't believe in marriage anyways, how long is it going to be before they get upset about some other injustice - real or imagined? Life isn't always fair and sometimes we just have to grow a pair (no pun intended) and live with it. We can't always have everything the way we want it. Be happy you live in such an open and safe society/time. I can remember reading articles in newspapers back in the 80s about "queers" (term generally used back then) and hairdressers getting beaten up in alley ways. I think society, on the whole, has become more tolerant and understanding (or is just bored to death of the topic and couldn't care less?). So, why not enjoy what you have and whine less about what you don't have. 

Because being married guarantees one certain rights that the unmarried don't enjoy. And why would "they get upset about some other injustice - real or imagined?" You think gay people are somehow spoiled or exceptionally demanding? Prejudiced much?  Society may have gotten more understanding, but clearly, you have a long way to go.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

Interracial marriages are capable of producing offspring. Same sex marriages are not. If you want to highlight infertile marriages as a reason to allow same sex marital union, do you think same sex marriages improve the reproductive odds?

 

You might as well tell me it's discriminatory for society to exclude marriage to a computer program. As I said, I have no issues with the private dealings of individuals. . . If a man wants to kid himself he's a woman, for example, I really couldn't care less and I would never try to deny him (her) the right to live their life in that way. . . but equally, don't deny me the right to say that (wo)man will always be just a man that's hacked himself to look like a woman, and has physically and chemically castrated himself. Reality sucks for some folk.

 

Who's denying you the right to say anything on the subject? It's funny, The poster before you alleged that gay people would just want more if granted the right to marry and here you are claiming that somehow your right to speak against gay marriage is threatened? Who is being the prima donna here?

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

Interracial marriages are capable of producing offspring. Same sex marriages are not. If you want to highlight infertile marriages as a reason to allow same sex marital union, do you think same sex marriages improve the reproductive odds?

 

You might as well tell me it's discriminatory for society to exclude marriage to a computer program. As I said, I have no issues with the private dealings of individuals. . . If a man wants to kid himself he's a woman, for example, I really couldn't care less and I would never try to deny him (her) the right to live their life in that way. . . but equally, don't deny me the right to say that (wo)man will always be just a man that's hacked himself to look like a woman, and has physically and chemically castrated himself. Reality sucks for some folk.

 

I personally think the constitutional ruling is merely affirmation of a social imperative that's as old as humanity itself, and don't find anything wrong with that. In many ways find Thailand to be a very liberal, tolerant and accepting society, for example, issuing visas to christian missionary groups even though they often spread vile and false commentary about Buddhism. . . and isn't that tolerance why so many LGBTYUAPXYZ+++ types are attracted to Thailand in the first place?

 

Marriage automatically grants couples  legal rights and status that currently only heterosexual unions enjoy. And since, as Yellow Dog point out, he somehow managed to produce a child outside of marriage, which I guess is either nothing short of a miracle, or maybe marriage isn't necessary to effect that result.

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

The person I am quoting alleges me to be scare mongering. I counter that cancel culture attempts to scare me into denying what I see to be fact.

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Marriage automatically grants couples  legal rights and status that currently only heterosexual unions enjoy. And since, as Yellow Dog point out, he somehow managed to produce a child outside of marriage, which I guess is either nothing short of a miracle, or maybe marriage isn't necessary to effect that result.

The argument used by those that oppose same sex marriage is that they deem 'normal' marriage to be good for society, but same sex marriage to be in opposition to that. As I fall back to my previous comments, I see no detriment to society in same sex relationships, but it is up to wider society to settle what is good for 'it'.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

The person I am quoting alleges me to be scare mongering. I counter that cancel culture attempts to scare me into denying what I see to be fact.

So you're saying its a fact that given the right to marry gay people in Thailand will start demanding more? Because of cancel culture? You got some evidence to back that up? Because, as far as I can see, there is no evidence to support such a contention. Which leaves bigotry as a reason someone would make such a ridiculous claim.

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

LOL, cancel culture is ubiquitous. You just have to open your eyes and look. You for example suggest I'm a bigot. For what, actually?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

The argument used by those that oppose same sex marriage is that they deem 'normal' marriage to be good for society, but same sex marriage to be in opposition to that. As I fall back to my previous comments, I see no detriment to society in same sex relationships, but it is up to wider society to settle what is good for 'it'.

You see no detriment? So when those gay people get the right to marry and then, according to your thinking, start demanding more, you think that won't be detrimental to society? In that case, why did you even raise the issue?

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

I didn't start the topic. I'm allowed to comment, aren't I? Other commenters claim the constitutional court is sexist, whatever. I want to state my opinion they are adherent to a social imperative as old as time. You seek to cancel me by suggesting I'm a bigot.

 

I don't see why secular society should be forced to accept god by a minority of zealots. I don't see why Thai society should be forced to accept gay marriage by a handful of those that feel aggrieved by their perceived lack of equality.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[tgw]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No.

Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold up to logic and reality.

Same sex marriages are between two HUMAN BEINGS.

There are no inanimate objects or other species involved.

Not one country has legislated marriage involving inanimate objects or other species.

24 nations have legislated full same sex human marriage equality.

There is no slippery slope here. To say there is is fear mongering. Its not a real thing.

marriage is an obsolete concept.

historically, it was an important element of hereditary power and the transmission of wealth, so it's not surprising that it has been strongly codified in religions as well and the solemnity/sanctity and pomp amplified.

in ancient Greece, marriage probably was something only the aristocracy did.

many laws and restrictions of later mediterranean religions were also derived from public order and public health considerations, as to avoid fights between men and avoid the spread of veneral diseases.

the ban on pork meat and for others, alcohol, has similar origins. religious communities grew their power by banning stuff that had been identified as harmful for the growth of their flock.

still, some people today continue to follow these laws even as they are completely obsolete.

 

people who want same sex marriages today don't want it for transmission of hereditary power, they want it because of the symbol and the aura of solemnity that has been built up over centuries by kingdoms and religions, which are now their ideological enemies.

beyond the "solemn decision to unite their lives", many marriages (I'm talking about mainly hetero marriages) are also established to abuse visa laws, abuse immigration laws (especially in Europe), and circumvent taxation.

for same sex marriages, there probably also is an element of wish to conquer normality through the appropriation of "normal people's" traditions  ...and religions. conquering religions with LGBT issues is tricky though.

 

but we also have good catholics who eat meat on fridays, people who think they are good muslims but drink alcohol or eat pork, and good jews who eat also eat pork when the rabbi doesn't look. it's yummy.

now try to explain to people who say that their book only contains verbatim the word of god, or to people who say their immutable traditions are everything, that precisely the exact word of god maybe wasn't and that the immutable traditions need to be changed.

 

not that I care.

as I have been through a "marriage", my best advice would be to do away with that obsolete remainder of a tradition anyway, along with the nonsensical elements in religions (i.e. 80-90% of it, some clearly have more BS content than others).

 

so at the end who cares - people want it, give it to them.

Edited December 4, 2021 by tgw

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

The two sexes concept is also obsolete, according to some.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[TooMuchTime]

Good on Thailand for making the right decisions.  Sadly a lot of dirty farangs here want to bring the degeneracy from their home countries to Thailand.

 

You guys can stay home if you don't hold or respect Thai traditional values.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, TooMuchTime said:

Good on Thailand for making the right decisions.  Sadly a lot of dirty farangs here want to bring the degeneracy from their home countries to Thailand.

 

You guys can stay home if you don't hold or respect Thai traditional values.

You sure that Iran wouldn't have been a better fit?

[talahtnut]

In the 'old days' if things went pear shaped, you could give your wife

back to her father.  Happy days.

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

46 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

They want to be more equal. They do not care about true equality, fairness, it's about identity politics.

I agree with this. I confess I had a chuckle when car insurance companies were banned from charging men more, and women's premiums went through the roof. Sometimes you get what you wish for. Statistics be damned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

1 hour ago, BuckAurelius said:

as it's becomes a pernicious, self-deluded, fanaticism that's completely lost any consciousness of its origins. 

What confuses me is the fact many LGBTs oppose marriage altogether, describing it as heteronormative i.e. bad for gays. Is there an idealistic war amongst gays? I don't know, I don't care.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

What confuses me is the fact many LGBTs oppose marriage altogether, describing it as heteronormative i.e. bad for gays. Is there an idealistic war amongst gays? I don't know, I don't care.

 

 

 

 

You seem extremely interested in these type of topics. I fear hearing from you on topics that you DO care about. 

 

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

I don't recall engaging you in any other LGBT topics, ever.

I read the news, I read these forums. What's your point, please participate as long as I scratch your personal itch?

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[Jingthing]

There is so much hatred, ignorance, bigotry, and mean spiritedness on this topic by people that are against equal civil rights for sexual minorities. It's obvious that no amount of civil debate would change such people. It's truly depressing that there are so many people like that but that's the reality.

[Led Lolly Yellow Lolly]

Do you think I am mean spirited? (sincere question) I said to another poster last night, TV is not a very nice place, so I agree with you fully on that point.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Led Lolly Yellow Lolly

[Swiss1960]

The language used by these so called "judges" and the thinking behind is so much stone-age and despicable, it is unbelievable... but that is what you get, when generals decide who is sitting on the highest benches... it is even worse, when you think about the wide acceptance of same-sex relationships or transgender lifestyles in this country, just shows the COMPLETE disconnect between the elites and the people. This issue at hand is just one of many examples. And from the translations of the verdict that I have seen, it is even more sad and - frankly - dangerous, that the court threatens lawmakers to not even think about legislation to legalize same-sex relations in any way, shape or form...

 

I will not comment on some of the posters in this thread, it would probably get me banned indefinitely...

 

HOWEVER... when you leave the wording away and think about just the basic fact of "what is marriage", then Thailand is not so far behind western countries, in some countries, legal same-sex partnerships exist for less than 20 years, and the official "marriage" has been approved less than 5 years ago. AND there are plenty of countries in Europe (not talking about African or Arab countries), where the thinking of the Thai supreme court is pretty much the norm. In Thailand at least, there is no lynching and no mob and no fines / prison sentences, when same-sex couples enjoy their life together, the general population is very accepting.

[Swiss1960]

4 hours ago, TooMuchTime said:

Good on Thailand for making the right decisions.  Sadly a lot of dirty farangs here want to bring the degeneracy from their home countries to Thailand.

 

You guys can stay home if you don't hold or respect Thai traditional values.

Transgenders in Thailand and stories about them and their roles in Royal Courts exist in Thailand since the 14th century... It is actually the Western "values" (aka the "values" in the fictional story book called bible) that brought negative feelings about transgenders to Thailand. You should educate yourself about "Thai traditional values", my dear...

[metisdead]

A post trolling about the "hillbilly redneck Trump-cult" has been removed.

 

A post containing a trolling image with profane language has been removed. 

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

I didn't start the topic. I'm allowed to comment, aren't I? Other commenters claim the constitutional court is sexist, whatever. I want to state my opinion they are adherent to a social imperative as old as time. You seek to cancel me by suggesting I'm a bigot.

 

 

 

Since when has "disagree" come to mean "cancel'? Where did I seek to cancel you? I pointed out that you slurred gay people by suggesting, without any evidence, that they wouldn't be satisfied with marriage but would just go on to other issues "real or imagined.". Given that you had no evidence for that it's clear you believe that gay people aren't motived by a legitimate grievance. You disparaged them for no good reason. Why isn't that bigotry?

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

I don't see why secular society should be forced to accept god by a minority of zealots. I don't see why Thai society should be forced to accept gay marriage by a handful of those that feel aggrieved by their perceived lack of equality.

You actually believe that a court appointed by the present government  is representative of the majority opinion of Thai society? You keep on betraying where your true sentiments lie.

[digbeth]

hospital rights and estate should one partner die is the real sticking point here, imagine your partner got into an accident and you can't decide his/her fate to authorize medical procedure at the hospital because you can't get 'married' only their maybe estranged actual relative who was never in your life can. same with estate in case of death, all you've built up together gone to his/her parent and sibling only because you aren't married

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

What confuses me is the fact many LGBTs oppose marriage altogether, describing it as heteronormative i.e. bad for gays. Is there an idealistic war amongst gays? I don't know, I don't care.

 

What confuses me is that many other straight people oppose marriage altogether. Of course, that statement, just like yours, is ridiculous. What gives it away is the use of the word "many". What percentage of gay people oppose marriage? What percentage of straight people oppose marriage? It's easy to cherry-pick. It's also an invalid way to advance an argument.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

The ever expanding list of acronyms trying to link people together who have little or nothing in common is a ploy

What they have in common is that they aren't allowed to marry. They didn't choose to be discriminated against in this regard. So no, as far as the marriage issue goes, obviously not a ploy.

[placeholder]

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars