Hope for same-sex marriage still a faint glimmer in Thailand

[Caldera]

Who in their right mind still wants to marry in 2021, same sex or otherwise? I wouldn't marry anyone of any gender.

[OneMoreFarang]

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Also consider lesbian couples.

That definitely makes breastfeeding a lot easier than with gay couples.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You didn't ask me but I can tell you the answer from some people, including me.

 

When people marry then they have the rights of married people. I.e. if one of them is sick in the hospital the other one can visit them and make decisions for them - because they are married. For many of us that is no problem. 

 

But then there are other rights like the right to adopt children. Many countries allow only that married couples adopt children, because they have the best interest of the children in mind. And when those adoption laws were made, many years ago, nobody even dreamed about that one day same sex couples would marry. So the laws were made with male/female couples in the mind of the lawmakers.

 

But now some people want to redefine marriage as something else than marriage of one male and one female person. A child should have a male father and a female mother. That is optimal for children. Giving same sex couples the right to marry and to adopt children undermines the rights of children. I think that is a good reason not to allow marriage of same sex couples until all related laws are reviewed.

 

The topic of same sex adption is NOT purpose of the thread however: I have also seen you stated you do not need studies to inform your opinion, still you may find this interesting.

You conflat issues which have no relevance into the discussion

 

 

On Jan. 6, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told a New Hampshire audience that children are better off with a father in prison than being raised in a home with lesbian parents and no father at all. And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat "to the future of humanity itself," citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes.

 

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

 

 

 

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

 

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.) [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

https://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

Edited December 13, 2021 by RJRS1301

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

The topic of same sex adption is NOT purpose of the thread however: I have also seen you stated you do not need studies to inform your opinion, still you may find this interesting.

You conflat issues which have ni relevance into the discussion

I’m not so sure.

 

The topic is ‘same sex marriage’ which is basically ‘same sex rights’....  the natural progression for many married couples is to want children and of course their ‘rights’ in having children either through surrogate or adoption. The topic has taken a natural and predictable on topic evolution. 

 

 

[Jingthing]

56 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Who in their right mind still wants to marry in 2021, same sex or otherwise? I wouldn't marry anyone of any gender.

Not your business.

Some do.

If you're straight you have the option.

It's not required.

[Jingthing]

38 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That definitely makes breastfeeding a lot easier than with gay couples.

So you likee?

[Longwood50]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The topic is ‘same sex marriage’ which is basically ‘same sex rights’....

The term "rights" is a red herring.  What the LGTB community wants is for the public to "embrace" their lifestyle giving it the impression to future generations that their lifestyle is not just accepted but rather endorsed.  They want it taught in the schools so that the children's impression is that the LGTB lifestyle is every bit as normal as the heterosexual lifestyle.  Now by "normal" I do not mean to convey that it is objectionable but rather it is not the norm.  A small fraction of the population identifies as LGB and even fewer identify as transsexual. So if teaching was really promoting the truth it would be that the LBTB lifestyle is not the norm but rather the exception. 

I am totally for legal protections that allow a same sex couple to enjoy the same rights and protections as married men and women.  However I am not for the term "marry" that conveys that it is identical in every way to a marriage between a man and a woman.  We use terms to convey a message and the message should be that the union is equal but not identical.  Society does that all the time.  A merger and an acquisition accomplish the same thing a common ownership but done in a different way.  Conception of a child whether invitro, or heterosexual sex produces the same result - a child but society chooses to use different terminology "because of the differences".

A union between two people of the same is "is different" than one between two people of the opposite sex.  Call it a civil union, a civil partnership,  a domestic partnership, a registered relationship but it should provide the identical rights but not be called a marriage. 

To continue to clamor for only "marriage" to be acceptable means that the true goal is the indoctrination of society and not the pursuit of "equal rights" 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
 

[OneMoreFarang]

38 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum [...] Pope Benedict

Those are really the last people who I care about.

 

And about studies: In principle I agree that it is a good idea to be well informed. Unfortunately the problem with studies is that almost anybody can find a study which supports what he/she thinks.

 

I have to admit for some things I just prefer my personal experience or gut feeling or whatever you want to call it.

Are all children with male/female parents in a better position than children in all same sex couples. Sure not.

 

Is it a disadvantage for children to not have a caring mother and a caring father. I think so - even without any official study.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

The term "rights" is a red herring.  What the LGTB community wants is for the public to "embrace" their lifestyle giving it the impression to future generations that their lifestyle is not just accepted but rather endorsed.  They want it taught in the schools so that the children's impression is that the LGTB lifestyle is every bit as normal as the heterosexual lifestyle.  Now by "normal" I do not mean to convey that it is objectionable but rather it is not the norm.  A small fraction of the population identifies as LGB and even fewer identify as transsexual. So if teaching was really promoting the truth it would be that the LBTB lifestyle is not the norm but rather the exception. 

I am totally for legal protections that allow a same sex couple to enjoy the same rights and protections as married men and women.  However I am not for the term "marry" that conveys that it is identical in every way to a marriage between a man and a woman.  We use terms to convey a message and the message should be that the union is equal but not identical.  Society does that all the time.  A merger and an acquisition accomplish the same thing a common ownership but done in a different way.  Conception of a child whether invitro, or heterosexual sex produces the same result - a child but society chooses to use different terminology "because of the differences".

A union between two people of the same is "is different" than one between two people of the opposite sex.  Call it a civil union, a civil partnership,  a domestic partnership, a registered relationship but it should provide the identical rights but not be called a marriage. 

To continue to clamor for only "marriage" to be acceptable means that the true goal is the indoctrination of society and not the pursuit of "equal rights" 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
 

Separate but equal is not equality.

By definition.

Nobody is suggesting that sexual minorities are or ever will be the majority.

Thats a red herring fear game you're playing.

Being gay is not a lifestyle. Surfing is a lifestyle. You're trivializing others lives by using that dated insulting term.

[BobBKK]

Personally I don't have an issue with civil partnerships with two people who love and want to be together. I am less enthusiastic with kids having two Dads (or Mums) and they will get hammered at school. Marriage was/is designed for a couple ONE of whom can have a baby - the principal purpose. I very much dislike the woke minority imposing their world view on the vast majority - if you are gay enjoy life - who cares? kids are a different thing imho.

[DefaultName]

Every LGTB on the planet is the product of a heterosexual relationship - OK, sometimes a very brief one - so these are our kids we're talking about.  If they want a ceremony and a bit of paper, let them have it, where's the harm.

[BobBKK]

Just now, DefaultName said:

Every LGTB on the planet is the product of a heterosexual relationship - OK, sometimes a very brief one - so these are our kids we're talking about.  If they want a ceremony and a bit of paper, let them have it, where's the harm.

I believe in complete freedom for OURSELVES - yes let them marry, yes let us smoke dope if we want, yes let guys dress as girls if they want - but DO NOT impinge on others (i.e. kids).

 

[BostonRob2]

My marriage has had the same sex for years.

[Longwood50]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

6 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

The term "rights" is a red herring.  What the LGTB community wants is for the public to "embrace" their lifestyle giving it the impression to future generations that their lifestyle is not just accepted but rather endorsed.  They want it taught in the schools so that the children's impression is that the LGTB lifestyle is every bit as normal as the heterosexual lifestyle.  Now by "normal" I do not mean to convey that it is objectionable but rather it is not the norm.  A small fraction of the population identifies as LGB and even fewer identify as transsexual. So if teaching was really promoting the truth it would be that the LBTB lifestyle is not the norm but rather the exception. 

I am totally for legal protections that allow a same sex couple to enjoy the same rights and protections as married men and women.  However I am not for the term "marry" that conveys that it is identical in every way to a marriage between a man and a woman.  We use terms to convey a message and the message should be that the union is equal but not identical.  Society does that all the time.  A merger and an acquisition accomplish the same thing a common ownership but done in a different way.  Conception of a child whether invitro, or heterosexual sex produces the same result - a child but society chooses to use different terminology "because of the differences".

A union between two people of the same is "is different" than one between two people of the opposite sex.  Call it a civil union, a civil partnership,  a domestic partnership, a registered relationship but it should provide the identical rights but not be called a marriage. 

To continue to clamor for only "marriage" to be acceptable means that the true goal is the indoctrination of society and not the pursuit of "equal rights" 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
 

Expand  

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Longwood50

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

It is not "separate"  We have separate toilets for men and women.  There are separate dressing rooms for men and women.  We have separate dorm rooms for men and women.  I could go on. 

From work, if I get a "vacation day" versus a "personal day"  The only thing different is the term and it is used to differentiate.  

Again if this a matter of equal rights, then great lets talk about whether that should be done via a civil partnership, civil union or whatever can be agreed on as "the term" for a same sex union with the same rights and privileges  as a marriage. However I contend it has nothing to do with equal rights otherwise there would not be this pressing need to have it be terms a marriage.  The real objective is to "convey" that the same sex marriage should be viewed as "normal" when in fact normal means what is typical.  A LGBT union is anything but normal.  It is the exception and any effort to promote it as the "norm" is merely to further their goal of indoctrination.

It is no different than the movement to allow trans athletes to compete and indoctrinate the public that this is "normal" and that someone who removes their genitals and identifies as a member of the opposite sex should be thought of identically as someone who was born as that sex. 

You are already seeing the effects of that indoctrination as the public becomes conditioned to think that somehow it is ok that a person with the physical attributes of a man can fairly compete with someone born as a biological woman. 

The same is true the LGBT community who wants to have society "embrace" the normality of their lifestyle when in fact it is decidedly in the minority and should be identified as "alternative" lifestyle.  

   
 

You persist with that lifestyle garbage. Show some respect. You are not superior to your fellow humans that happen to be sexual minorities. You do not deserve superior civil rights just because you are in a majority. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Jingthing

[Longwood50]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Separate but equal is not equality.

Oh so if we have mens teams and womens teams "that is not equality"  If you have mens sports and womens sports that is not equality.   We have separate toilets for men and women.  There are separate dressing rooms for men and women.  We have separate dorm rooms for men and women.  I could go on. 

From work, if I get a "vacation day" versus a "personal day"  The only thing different is the term and it is used to differentiate.  

Again if this a matter of equal rights, then great lets talk about whether that should be done via a civil partnership, civil union or whatever can be agreed on as "the term" for a same sex union with the same rights and privileges  as a marriage. However I contend it has nothing to do with equal rights otherwise there would not be this pressing need to have it be terms a marriage.  The real objective is to "convey" that the same sex marriage should be viewed as "normal" when in fact normal means what is typical.  A LGBT union is anything but normal.  It is the exception and any effort to promote it as the "norm" is merely to further their goal of indoctrination.

It is no different than the movement to allow trans athletes to compete and indoctrinate the public that this is "normal" and that someone who removes their genitals and identifies as a member of the opposite sex should be thought of identically as someone who was born as that sex. 

You are already seeing the effects of that indoctrination as the public becomes conditioned to think that somehow it is ok that a person with the physical attributes of a man can fairly compete with someone born as a biological woman. 

The same is true the LGBT community who wants to have society "embrace" the normality of their lifestyle when in fact it is decidedly in the minority and should be identified as "alternative" lifestyle.  

   

[Longwood50]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

You persist with that lifestyle garbage

It is a lifestyle choice.  Not any different than those who wish to be celibate, those who wish to remain single, and those who wish to have a heterosexual marriage. 

The fact is that the "true agenda" is not equality of rights but the "image" of the identical "normality" of the lifestyle to traditional heterosexual marriage allowing those who follow that lifestyle to attempt to indoctrinate the public.  

As said if someone terminates me and they call a payment to me a bonus, a severance, or a breakup fee I could car less if it is truly about the equality.  However the push to have it termed a marriage has far less to do with equality and far more to do with promoting the lifestyle.  And to that, I disagree.  Live your life as you see fit but do not attempt to indoctrinate your politics, religion, or sexual lifestyle.  
 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

The term "rights" is a red herring.  What the LGTB community wants is for the public to "embrace" their lifestyle giving it the impression to future generations that their lifestyle is not just accepted but rather endorsed.  They want it taught in the schools so that the children's impression is that the LGTB lifestyle is every bit as normal as the heterosexual lifestyle.  Now by "normal" I do not mean to convey that it is objectionable but rather it is not the norm.  A small fraction of the population identifies as LGB and even fewer identify as transsexual. So if teaching was really promoting the truth it would be that the LBTB lifestyle is not the norm but rather the exception. 

I am totally for legal protections that allow a same sex couple to enjoy the same rights and protections as married men and women.  However I am not for the term "marry" that conveys that it is identical in every way to a marriage between a man and a woman.  We use terms to convey a message and the message should be that the union is equal but not identical.  Society does that all the time.  A merger and an acquisition accomplish the same thing a common ownership but done in a different way.  Conception of a child whether invitro, or heterosexual sex produces the same result - a child but society chooses to use different terminology "because of the differences".

A union between two people of the same is "is different" than one between two people of the opposite sex.  Call it a civil union, a civil partnership,  a domestic partnership, a registered relationship but it should provide the identical rights but not be called a marriage. 

To continue to clamor for only "marriage" to be acceptable means that the true goal is the indoctrination of society and not the pursuit of "equal rights" 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
 

Dude you're obsessed with toilets.

How about this if you actually believe gay people having something different is equality. 

How about you an admitted heterosexual in the straight lifestyle accept civil unions for you guys and give marriage with all its automatic civil rights to gays?

If you're not a total hypocrite you would be OK with that. Yeah?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Longwood50 said:

It is a lifestyle choice.  Not any different than those who wish to be celibate, those who wish to remain single, and those who wish to have a heterosexual marriage. 

The fact is that the "true agenda" is not equality of rights but the "image" of the identical "normality" of the lifestyle to traditional heterosexual marriage allowing those who follow that lifestyle to attempt to indoctrinate the public.  

As said if someone terminates me and they call a payment to me a bonus, a severance, or a breakup fee I could car less if it is truly about the equality.  However the push to have it termed a marriage has far less to do with equality and far more to do with promoting the lifestyle.  And to that, I disagree.  Live your life as you see fit but do not attempt to indoctrinate your politics, religion, or sexual lifestyle.  
 

Being gay is not a choice.

[Karma80]

7 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat "to the future of humanity itself," citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes.

I can only assume the use of the catholic church as an authority on child welfare is sarcasm. 

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, Karma80 said:

I can only assume the use of the catholic church as an authority on child welfare is sarcasm. 

Home run! Or should I say homo run?

Anyway ideally national laws are separate from religious dogma.

 

States should legalize gay marriage but shouldn't force religious venues to perform them.

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Jingthing

[Jen65]

If they could agree to implement "Civil Unions " , that would be a start and would placate those wishing for same sex marriage somewhat . 

[Longwood50]

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

ow about you an admitted heterosexual in the straight lifestyle accept civil unions for you guys

If there were two different terms I would be ok with that.  If they wished to call today's traditional marriage a life partnership or civil union and a ceremony by two same sex a marriage.  Yes 

The point still is that words have meaning.  You see though we all are human beings we use the terms male and female to designate what sex a person is.  Though we are all human beings we use the term, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, German, Italian etc to differentiate people on the basis of ethnicity. 

Even the gay community distinguishes its sexuality by using the term "gay" as contrasted to "straight"  So unions between two people of the same sex should be termed something different than one between two people of the opposite sex.  

 

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Being gay is not a choice.

Oh so you are saying "it is based in ones DNA"  LOL 

If that is the case please show me the research that establishes a different DNA pattern in someone gay versus bi, versus trans etc. 

Also please show where we have the identical same sex preference shown in other mammals or does your DNA concocted theory only evidence itself in humans. 

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh so you are saying "it is based in ones DNA"  LOL 

If that is the case please show me the research that establishes a different DNA pattern in someone gay versus bi, versus trans etc. 

Also please show where we have the identical same sex preference shown in other mammals or does your DNA concocted theory only evidence itself in humans. 

 

Here is a test 

Have a self pleasuring session.

You get aroused by men or women when doing so? Particularly at time of orgasm.

Can you choose to get aroused by men?

Then you might be bi.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Jingthing

[swissie]

Same sex marriages are allowed in more and more coutries legally. Even in some strictly catholic countries in South America. So far so good.
- But how long will it take before full acceptance will find entry into families, friends, neighborhoods? Probably another 20 years.

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

If there were two different terms I would be ok with that.  If they wished to call today's traditional marriage a life partnership or civil union and a ceremony by two same sex a marriage.  Yes 

The point still is that words have meaning.  You see though we all are human beings we use the terms male and female to designate what sex a person is.  Though we are all human beings we use the term, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, German, Italian etc to differentiate people on the basis of ethnicity. 

Even the gay community distinguishes its sexuality by using the term "gay" as contrasted to "straight"  So unions between two people of the same sex should be termed something different than one between two people of the opposite sex.  

 

You cheated!

You said you were OK with a new name IF it included all the rights of marriage.

No!

The new name thing would need every right legislated just as you want to stick gays with.

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, swissie said:

Same sex marriages are allowed in more and more coutries legally. Even in some strictly catholic countries in South America. So far so good.
- But how long will it take before full acceptance will find entry into families, friends, neighborhoods? Probably another 20 years.

 

True.

[Longwood50]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You cheated!

You said you were OK with a new name IF it included all the rights of marriage.

You lost me there.  You asked if I was ok with heterosexual unions having a different name than a union of same sex couples and that name being something other than being called a marriage.  I said yes. 

If the rights are identical then the only thing by having a different name for the same rights, privileges and obligations is to make a distinction that a union of two people of the same sex is "different" 

I am not for taking away any rights or privileges'.  But I am adamantly against  anything that attempts to convey the lifestyle as being identical to a heterosexual union and that being used to indoctrinate people that  someone that lifestyle is every bit as normal as a heterosexual couple.  I would say the same thing about a man who can legally have multiple wives.  That is not any more "normal" than a same sex life partnership.  

[Stubby]

Look, I don't care if someone is a man, woman, beast, gay, straight, or even Australian. But by heck, it's hard to keep up, sometimes. There's too much to remember nowadays, it's almost like another language.
 

Forget Same-Sex Mariage, What About the New Sex Couples (all 100 of them)? 
 

A BBC film tells kids as young as nine that there are now over 100 gender identities. It's called Identity – Understanding Sexual and Gender Identities. Then there are the new pronouns to remember. It's true; many folks now get offended if you refer to them as HE or SHE. And official documents in the UK - like passport applications - now use Parent 1 and Parent 2 to avoid upsetting same-sex parents. That's right, mother and father have been dumped.
 

I'm an advocate for live and let live, but all this PC, well... it's like walking over freaking eggshells in slippers made of lead.

Folks, you should be able to do whatever you want if you're not hurting anyone, and good onya. But please, drop all the labels and insistence that everybody embraces the new you, whether you're same-sex or an 3-eyed alien.

Geesh, ain't life already complicated enough!
 

Stubby the Mister Man

Edited December 13, 2021 by Stubby