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

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

Sure. Plenty of normal families looking to adopt. Give the kid a normal, natural life/upbringing. ???? 

That's deceptive.

There is indeed a very high demand for babies, very young children, of the dominant race in societies.

There is much weaker demand for older children, children with problems, certain races of children.

Adoption opportunities for single parents is related to same sex couples adoption.

Lesbians of course don't need to adopt to have children.

 

[Jingthing]

It was incorrectly asserted here that homosexuality does not occur in the animal kingdom and that proves its always a choice with humans.

 

Nope.

 

 

[Jingthing]

19 hours ago, Screaming said:

And this is one good thing about living in Thailand. No marriage between same sex people.

Imagine if some years back someone said this:

 

And this is one good thing about living in South Africa. Apartheid.

 

That would be an opinion for sure. An atrocious bigoted opinion.

[hawaiiphil]

On 12/13/2021 at 12:36 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe they should think twice who is the minority and who the majority.

The minority, the LGBTQ+/- whatever, do in Thailand more or less what they want. I see them everyday on the streets and they don't seems to be very suppressed.

Many people accept this minority insofar that if they want to live and f@$@ together let them do it. But a big part of society will never accept that they should have the right to marry and adopt children. 

Many laws are what the majority want. Maybe the LGBTQ+/- whatever minority should accept that and just live happily together without being married.

Clearly a minority view.

[Jingthing]

On 12/13/2021 at 7:36 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe they should think twice who is the minority and who the majority.

The minority, the LGBTQ+/- whatever, do in Thailand more or less what they want. I see them everyday on the streets and they don't seems to be very suppressed.

Many people accept this minority insofar that if they want to live and f@$@ together let them do it. But a big part of society will never accept that they should have the right to marry and adopt children. 

Many laws are what the majority want. Maybe the LGBTQ+/- whatever minority should accept that and just live happily together without being married.

Where did you get the idea that the majority of Thai people oppose gay marriage?!?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Same-sex_marriage_opinion_polls_worldwide

[hawaiiphil]

On 12/13/2021 at 3:46 AM, 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.

 

I know many same sex couples bringing up healthy, happy, well adjusted children. You're living in the past, trapped there by your prejudice.

[jak2002003]

6 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

Sure. Plenty of normal families looking to adopt. Give the kid a normal, natural life/upbringing. ???? 

That is a disgusting attitude. It stinks of when people took the children away from native Indians or Aboriginal people, as the white people thought the children would be better off raised by good white Christian couples. 

 

Taking children away from someone because they are gay or lesbian ....I can't believe that anyone would have that attitude in this day and age. 

 

How dare you say you would support authorities taking my children off me because I am a gay. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by jak2002003

[JeffersLos]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Marriage equality means complete equality.

Being married doesn't mean that you can automatically adopt. 

 

There are many more factors to be considered. ????

 

2 heterosexual neo-nazis that served 10 years in prison for armed robbery won't be able to adopt, besides being married.

 

 

You're welcome. ????

Edited December 16, 2021 by JeffersLos

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Being married doesn't mean that you can automatically adopt. 

 

There are many more factors to be considered. ????

 

2 heterosexual neo-nazis that served 10 years in prison for armed robbery won't be able to adopt, besides being married.

 

 

You're welcome. ????

Obviously there is screening. Should be so for all couples and single applicants too. 

[ikke1959]

Marriage is in fact an oral agreement between 2 people who promises eachother to stay together till death will them part, at least it was before the Reformation and a few centuries after. The promise was made in front of the priest or high ranked official and the family as witness. Same in fact as here in Thailand the ceremonial marriage. In a marriage in that time the women were very quickly pregnant and than there was a family created. Father, mother and a kid or many kids. 

In times of need  death or hospitalization, there was always someone around who was allowed to do the decisions. 

But times changes and to be nowadays gay/lesbian or whatever are more accepted and people don't need to live a secret live anymore. But than an other problem occurs. The relationships can not be confirmed by a priest or high ranked officers, because in the last century everything needs to be legal and witness as family are not valid anymore. and people are tied with the written laws. Gay people can't get kids and there for can not create a family. In fact the adoption is not a need for couples , but there is a big need for legalization of he relationship. 

I have experienced with our foster kid who was only just 17 years old when his mother died. His father was only ceremonial married and he could not do anything to claim the body and arrange the funeral. Happily we had the papers that we were the boys legal guardians and with a lot of talking, the boy could claim the body and arrange the funeral although he was still underaged. Gay people has to deal with the same, and if there are 2 Thais married it is probably not a big problem because in Thailand a brother/ sister or other relative can o it, but with mixed relationships foreigner and Thai there could be serious problems. Suppose you need permission for a surgery of life and death, and the family of the foreigner has to be found and give permission... t could be too late...

And all the talking about adoption here if it is good or bad for a kid... Nobody knows.... Yes a father and a mother have different ways, but 2 mothers or 2 fathers  I think it will not be a big difference .. How many kids grow up with only 1 parent, because of divorce or death??

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

Calm down darling. 

 

If you and your gay husband adopted a child, and they were being raised in a same sex household without a mother, sure, they should be re-adopted by a hetero mother-father family that has passed the criteria. ???? 

'calm down darling'......don't be so patronising!

 

You are telling me my own children should be taken off us because we are gay.

 

You are a disgusting individual and should be ashamed of yourself.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by jak2002003

[2009]

I don't see why gays shouldn't have civil rights just like regular people.

 

But where do you draw the line? Should there be a line?

 

Adoption?

 

Boys being sent to school in dresses? That happened in France, right?

 

Puberty blocking hormones for confused kids?

 

Impressionable kids being taught WAY WAY more than just sexual health and safety.

 

Where does it stop? I dunno, who knows?

 

I am definitely not an Adam and Eve guy, but I ain't sure about Adam and Steve, either.

 

Can I say that? Seems like there is not free speech in the world anymore. If you question the agenda, it's hate speech.

 

At what point does it all become perverted?

 

What I can't get my head around is this massive push in this direction. Where is it coming from all of a sudden?

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post and reply reported and removed.

[JeffersLos]

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

my own children

Not if you adopted them. ????

 

But yes, adopted children should be adopted by heterosexual families, not same sex couples. ????

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Not if you adopted them. ????

 

But yes, adopted children should be adopted by heterosexual families, not same sex couples. ????

No.

 

If a child has been legally adopted the child then has parents with the exact same legal parental rights as any other parents. 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, 2009 said:

I don't see why gays shouldn't have civil rights just like regular people.

 

But where do you draw the line? Should there be a line?

 

Adoption?

 

Boys being sent to school in dresses? That happened in France, right?

 

Puberty blocking hormones for confused kids?

 

Impressionable kids being taught WAY WAY more than just sexual health and safety.

 

Where does it stop? I dunno, who knows?

 

I am definitely not an Adam and Eve guy, but I ain't sure about Adam and Steve, either.

 

Can I say that? Seems like there is not free speech in the world anymore. If you question the agenda, it's hate speech.

 

At what point does it all become perverted?

 

What I can't get my head around is this massive push in this direction. Where is it coming from all of a sudden?

 

 

 

 

This topic is about marriage equality specifically.

 

Boys in dresses is something else.

 

Can you say you're not sure about Adam and Steve? Dude, you just said it. So you can say it but it does make you sound like an ossified fuddy duddy.

 

My suggestion to you and everyone else that opposes gay marriage is simple. Don't get gay married.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Jingthing

[2009]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

This topic is about marriage equality specifically.

 

Boys in dresses is something else.

 

Can you say you're not sure about Adam and Steve? Dude, you just said it. So you can say it but it does make you sound like an ossified fuddy duddy.

 

My suggestion to you and everyone else that opposes gay marriage is simple. Don't get gay married.

Yeah, but the thing is once gay marriage is granted that opens the door for a lot of other things.

 

It isn't enough that they are allowed to have the same civil rights through marriage (i.e. right to each others property, pension).....and by the way I think gay couples should have those rights......but then if they are married they want the right to kids and it just keeps going.

 

Next thing, they have the right to dress their kids how they want. They have the right to use puberty blocking hormones (until the child or they decides to have puberty).

 

Marriage just opens the door to all these other things.

 

It becomes a can of worms.

 

If a man and a woman can't make a baby due to a medical problem they get medical help with that and in many places paid for by the state. But if two woman are married and they can't make a baby (because nature simply doesn't allow), they want they same benefits (artificial pregnancy paid for by the state).

 

It seems we are unable to draw a line anymore without the extreme fascist left calling us bigots or something.

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, 2009 said:

Yeah, but the thing is once gay marriage is granted that opens the door for a lot of other things.

 

It isn't enough that they are allowed to have the same civil rights through marriage (i.e. right to each others property, pension).....and by the way I think gay couples should have those rights......but then if they are married they want the right to kids and it just keeps going.

 

Next thing, they have the right to dress their kids how they want. They have the right to use puberty blocking hormones (until the child or they decides to have puberty).

 

Marriage just opens the door to all these other things.

 

It becomes a can of worms.

 

If a man and a woman can't make a baby due to a medical problem they get medical help with that and in many places paid for by the state. But if two woman are married and they can't make a baby (because nature simply doesn't allow), they want they same benefits (artificial pregnancy paid for by the state).

 

It seems we are unable to draw a line anymore without the extreme fascist left calling us bigots or something.

 

 

 

Not sure any "state" pays for IVF for heterosexual or same sex attracted persons. None I am aware of anyway. 

Hormone blockers are also in most countries very strictly controlled, and in some places unless the person can get consent, and if a "minor" need a court order for them to be prescribed, irrespective of the parent sexual orientation, the "thin edge" of the wedge argument merely sounding like an effort to deny people the same rights which people enjoy by mere fact of being heterosexual 

[ikke1959]

2 hours ago, 2009 said:

Yeah, but the thing is once gay marriage is granted that opens the door for a lot of other things.

 

It isn't enough that they are allowed to have the same civil rights through marriage (i.e. right to each others property, pension).....and by the way I think gay couples should have those rights......but then if they are married they want the right to kids and it just keeps going.

 

Next thing, they have the right to dress their kids how they want. They have the right to use puberty blocking hormones (until the child or they decides to have puberty).

 

Marriage just opens the door to all these other things.

 

It becomes a can of worms.

 

If a man and a woman can't make a baby due to a medical problem they get medical help with that and in many places paid for by the state. But if two woman are married and they can't make a baby (because nature simply doesn't allow), they want they same benefits (artificial pregnancy paid for by the state).

 

It seems we are unable to draw a line anymore without the extreme fascist left calling us bigots or something.

 

 

 

According to the Constitutional Court a marriage is to reproduce .... Two women who could not get pregnant should be helped the same as a heterosexual couple...because women are the only ones who can carry them.... But I don't know if adoption is so important for ALL gay couples.. Gay couples like to be free and go around and with kids your are limited....So first a legal relationship is more important than adoption of kids for the few who want that 

[JeffersLos]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If a child has been legally adopted

it is not the child of the adoptive parents, it is their adopted child. ????

 

There are many criteria for adoptive parents to pass before being able to adopt, being a natural hetero couple should be one. ???? 

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

...

There are many criteria for adoptive parents to pass before being able to adopt, being a natural hetero couple should be one. ???? 

Your opinion on that noted ad nauseum.

 

So in your opinion a ten year old with severe aspergers is better institutionalized or in foster care football than adopted by a loving gay couple?

[JeffersLos]

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So in your opinion a ten year old with severe aspergers is better institutionalized or in foster care football than adopted by a loving gay couple?

Until a suitable couple are found to adopt them, sure. ????

 

The same as for other couples that don't meet specific criteria. 

Edited December 17, 2021 by JeffersLos

[Jingthing]

Just now, JeffersLos said:

Until a suitable couple are found to adopt them, sure. ????

 

The same as for other couples that don't meet specific criteria. 

No!!!

That would be foster care.

Adoption is final.

[JeffersLos]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Adoption is final

Thus the best care must be met when deciding the criteria for adoptive parents. 

 

There are lots of reasons why they should not be allowed to become adoptive parents. Both being the same-sex is one. ???? 

[Jingthing]

39 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Thus the best care must be met when deciding the criteria for adoptive parents. 

 

There are lots of reasons why they should not be allowed to become adoptive parents. Both being the same-sex is one. ???? 

You keep saying.

What I'm feeling from you is garden variety intolerance.

[JeffersLos]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What I'm feeling from you is garden variety intolerance.

Whatever helps you deal with such child-protective opinions. ???? 

[Jingthing]

Just now, JeffersLos said:

Whatever helps you deal with such child-protective opinions. ???? 

Bigoted opinions more like.

[JeffersLos]

As said, whatever helps you deal with such child-protective opinions. ????

[Mr Dome]

On 12/16/2021 at 3:00 PM, Longwood50 said:

Oh so it is not.  Please show me the "science" showing that there is a genetic difference between those that are gay and those that are not. 

You "choose" what you have a preference for.  Some men might prefer small versus large women, some blondes versus brunettes, some Scandinavians versus Asians.  And yes some prefer other men or some women prefer other women.  That sir is a choice not a genetic code imprinted in ones DNA. 

If it were at all true that somehow people were genetically wired to be gay you would see that manifest itself not just in humans but also in other mammals.  It does not.  Also if there was some sort of DNA imprinting on humans that caused a person to be gay, that "gene" would soon be eliminated from the human gene pool since those possessing that genetic code would be incapable of passing it along since two men can not produce a child nor can two women.  

At the very least the percentage of the population who are gay would be decreasing as evolution since heterosexuality would be producing the vast majority of the children. 

The idea that somehow the person is destined to be gay is just a coping mechanism.  It shows that somehow you believe that there is no choice.   Why some are attracted to same sex I have no idea but the very fact that the phenomena only occurs in humans pretty well conclusively shows it is controlled by someone's brain not their DNA code. 

Referring to the part about mammals & animals:

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00344.x#:~:text=Adult homosexual behaviour is widespread,the sheep and goat tribe.

 

This is of course, just one out of many links one can find on the topic. Plus, you're not working in the field of studying animal behavior.

 

I'm beginning to think whoever created "longwood50" is just xxxxing with us - i.e. a PFT (professional forum troll). Nobody can actually mean this & lie so brazenly in (almost) 2022.

 

[Mr Dome]

On 12/17/2021 at 7:38 AM, 2009 said:

Yeah, but the thing is once gay marriage is granted that opens the door for a lot of other things.

 

It isn't enough that they are allowed to have the same civil rights through marriage (i.e. right to each others property, pension).....and by the way I think gay couples should have those rights......but then if they are married they want the right to kids and it just keeps going.

 

Next thing, they have the right to dress their kids how they want. They have the right to use puberty blocking hormones (until the child or they decides to have puberty).

 

Marriage just opens the door to all these other things.

 

It becomes a can of worms.

 

If a man and a woman can't make a baby due to a medical problem they get medical help with that and in many places paid for by the state. But if two woman are married and they can't make a baby (because nature simply doesn't allow), they want they same benefits (artificial pregnancy paid for by the state).

 

It seems we are unable to draw a line anymore without the extreme fascist left calling us bigots or something.

 

 

 

You're from the US, aren't you?

 

"On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges."

 

Yet, none of the things you claimed would happen as a result, have happened.

 

I call this far removed from reality but then your closing statement showed us that's more or less your permanent state of mind.

Good grief ????‍♂️

 

Perhaps, there are more homophobic folks posting elsewhere in the dark dregs of the internet but this is as bad as it gets for a mainstream site dedicated to a completely unrelated topic.