12 hours ago, blazes said:

Don't be fooled, indeed. 

"Hate groups"  have become merely organizations or people with whom a different group disagrees.

 The LGB Allliance was formed in opposition to the Stonewall group that seeks to encourage "transitions" in children.  So (natch) the Stonewallers would call the Alliance a "hate group".

It would not be surprising if, soon, contributors to Asean News threads start accusing each other of "hate speech" when they disagree on the latest hot topic.

I offer this Wiki link below, not because it is "better" than your Twitter reference, but because it shows how tiresome and hateful this transition "debate" has become.

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

 

"Hate groups"  have become merely organizations or people with whom a different group disagrees.*

 

The term is used very loosely at times but it's appropriate in this case. The more you look into them the more sinister they become. 

 

"It would not be surprising if, soon, contributors to Asean News threads start accusing each other of "hate speech" when they disagree on the latest hot topic." 

 

If you're gay you will have seen a lot of trolling  speech on here but most of it is deleted. Generally the moderators do a good job. 

 

"I offer this Wiki link below, ....."

 

Did you actually read the whole of the article? It shows the LGB Alliance in a very poor light. 

 

This thread is a prime example of grumpy old straight farts in their echo chamber whining about something that they have absolutely no comprehension on knowing anything about. 

 

The story was about Thailand considering legalising same sex marriage or civil unions, but has somehow ended up with old farts comparing transexuals to cows and general mocking and derogatory comments.

 

What century are you living in? You should be ashamed of yourselves!

1 hour ago, godonnet said:

This thread is a prime example of grumpy old straight farts in their echo chamber whining about something that they have absolutely no comprehension on knowing anything about. 

 

The story was about Thailand considering legalising same sex marriage or civil unions, but has somehow ended up with old farts comparing transexuals to cows and general mocking and derogatory comments.

 

What century are you living in? You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Same as it ever was.

1 hour ago, godonnet said:

...The story was about Thailand considering legalising same sex marriage or civil unions...

Well, this story, ie this thread, has both "Thai LGBTQ+ Community" and "Same-Sex Union Bills" in its title and therefore is not exclusively about L an B, but also about BTQ+. In other words, it is about anything and everything non-hetrosexual. I feel discriminated against.

On 6/10/2022 at 8:39 PM, Adelphi said:

Why should they not be allowed  to adopt?  Many children in orphanages without parents.  All the evidence is that lesbians and gay men can make excellent parents.  

Yes and what if this all changes in the future and the kids have to put up with ridicule in school etc?

44 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Yes and what if this all changes in the future and the kids have to put up with ridicule in school etc?

     There's no going back.  Not with gay marriage rights, not with inter-racial marriage rights, not with women's rights, not with abortion rights, not with minority rights.  Those in opposition, including a handful of conservatives on the Supreme Court, are swimming against a tide that has turned.   It was quite heartening to recently see very conservative Kansas vote overwhelmingly to retain abortion rights in the state.  

2 hours ago, newnative said:

     There's no going back.  Not with gay marriage rights, not with inter-racial marriage rights, not with women's rights, not with abortion rights, not with minority rights.  Those in opposition, including a handful of conservatives on the Supreme Court, are swimming against a tide that has turned.   It was quite heartening to recently see very conservative Kansas vote overwhelmingly to retain abortion rights in the state.  

Only 2 things certain in life death and taxes,and you would be suprised how many ordinary people are against all this sort of change.

2 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Only 2 things certain in life death and taxes,and you would be suprised how many ordinary people are against all this sort of change.

     Oh, for sure, there likely will always be a minority against.  6% of Americans are still opposed to inter-racial marriage.  In 1958, that figure was 96% opposed.  Changing attitudes takes time.   For gay marriage, the percentage in favor of it keeps going up.  As recently as 2014, a small majority of 55% supported it.  Today, it's at an all-time high of 71%.  

16 minutes ago, newnative said:

     Oh, for sure, there likely will always be a minority against.  6% of Americans are still opposed to inter-racial marriage.  In 1958, that figure was 96% opposed.  Changing attitudes takes time.   For gay marriage, the percentage in favor of it keeps going up.  As recently as 2014, a small majority of 55% supported it.  Today, it's at an all-time high of 71%.  

Depends where you do the asking,bet in my old home town you would be hard pressedto get 5% but anyway lets just beg to differ.

1 hour ago, bert bloggs said:

Depends where you do the asking,bet in my old home town you would be hard pressedto get 5% but anyway lets just beg to differ.

   I think you are way behind the times.  Even a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage by 55%.  But, yes, let's definitely differ on this.

2 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Depends where you do the asking,bet in my old home town you would be hard pressedto get 5% but anyway lets just beg to differ.

Iran?

5 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Only 2 things certain in life death and taxes,and you would be suprised how many ordinary people are against all this sort of change.

indeed by people who don't know anything about it.. But if explained they will change their minds, except fanatic believers of religions, and people who like to discriminate others for being different.. As you can see that only a skin color is a big problem in especially America.... 

On 6/10/2022 at 7:48 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

If two males are getting married and they both are wearing suits  , is there any way of knowing which one is the Wife ?

The wife blushes?

On 6/10/2022 at 1:48 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

If two males are getting married and they both are wearing suits  , is there any way of knowing which one is the Wife ?

I prefer "wife-bund"

Westerners often mistake the open presence of "ladyboys" in Thailand as a liberal attitude to being "gay" or  anyone who is considered "LGBTQ".

This is not actually true - in fact outside the major urban areas such as Bangkok or Pattaya, being gay is try difficult.

The problem being is that in Thailand. especially  if you are a gay male, you are expected to dress up as a woman to be accepted. Lesbians are meant to be "tom and dee" but outside society's accepted conformities life can be very difficult.

Of course men dressed as women gives Thai men the opportunity for "gay" relationships whilst still convincing themselves that they ae heterosexual. 

Thailand may still have some way to go before most people accept others for what they truly are.

On 6/11/2022 at 10:30 PM, Yellowtail said:

If you castrate a bull, it does not become a cow. 

It becomes a steer.

On 6/10/2022 at 1:31 PM, blazes said:

I don't have a problem with gays marrying or whatever, but I do wish they would stop referring to their spouses as either husband or wife.  It causes unnecessary (but probably deliberate) confusion as one does a double-take.

(What's wrong with "partner"?)

Well you call your other half your partner then. 

 

I have no problem with straight marriage...but.....????

On 6/10/2022 at 6:51 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Just make sure they are not allowed to adopt children. 

What?! 

 

Why not?

 

So you want to tell our adopted children they have to be taken off us because we are gay?

 

 

On 6/10/2022 at 8:16 PM, Orinoco said:

How  uninteresting. 

Can't even keep up with the silly terminology now days. 

 

 

 

As a married gay man this was interesting to me.  I have no idea why you would read the article if you are not interested in the subject ..but I have a good idea why people like you would comment on it on this thread. 

On 6/12/2022 at 6:30 AM, Yellowtail said:

If you castrate a bull, it does not become a cow. 

Do you really think the gender sugary is that simple? I suppose it matched your knowledge of the topic.

20 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

Do you really think the gender sugary is that simple? I suppose it matched your knowledge of the topic.

For animals it's pretty forking simple. Humans just got to complicate things.

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

So you want to tell our adopted children they have to be taken off us because we are gay?

Did I write this anywhere?

If you have them then you have them and taking away the children from you won't be (in general) good for the children.

 

And in general, it is also not good for children if they don't grow up with a female mother and a male father at the same time. There are already too many unhappy children out there.

 

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

For animals it's pretty forking simple. Humans just got to complicate things.

I don't think you really understand the topic. You seem to be confusing castration in domesticated animals - usually part of a sterilisation program with gender re-assignment which is just one facet of a general societal re-appreciation of gender labelling and gender roles. nobody's "got" to do anything.

It should be noted that sexual orientation and transgender are not inter-related. It is incorrect to assume that someone who undertakes gender reassignment is lesbian or gay or that his or her sexual orientation will change after gender reassignment. However, historically the campaigns advocating equality for both transgendered and lesbian, gay and bisexual communities have often been associated with each other. 

Edited August 6, 20223 yr by Thunglom

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Did I write this anywhere?

If you have them then you have them and taking away the children from you won't be (in general) good for the children.

 

And in general, it is also not good for children if they don't grow up with a female mother and a male father at the same time. There are already too many unhappy children out there.

 

you seem to have a naive appreciation of what "a family" constitutes both currently as historically - you need to get in touch with tr real world.

8 hours ago, Thunglom said:

you seem to have a naive appreciation of what "a family" constitutes both currently as historically - you need to get in touch with tr real world.

And maybe you should learn about kids and how they grow up and what they typically learn from the father and what they learn from the mother. Not surprisingly they learn different things from their male and female parents. This is why it is most healthy when kids have both mother and father taking care of them.

 

That doesn't mean that if a couple breaks up or one partner dies that the kids should be taken away from them. That would obviously be bad. But it also means that it is sub-optimal to let single people, or only male or only female couples adopt children.

The focus should be what is good for the children and not what the adults want.

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And maybe you should learn about kids and how they grow up and what they typically learn from the father and what they learn from the mother. Not surprisingly they learn different things from their male and female parents. This is why it is most healthy when kids have both mother and father taking care of them.

 

That doesn't mean that if a couple breaks up or one partner dies that the kids should be taken away from them. That would obviously be bad. But it also means that it is sub-optimal to let single people, or only male or only female couples adopt children.

The focus should be what is good for the children and not what the adults want.

There is a minority that will never agree with the majority of us,they will shout us down and ensure that they will be heard or frighten those in charge,to do as they say,in the past they did not have social media to trumpet their beliefs,but you only have to see in the comments sections of papers like the Daily Mail,what the average joe really thinks and its not what the average begging bowl Guardian reader thinks.

Anyway i am sure i will be called all sorts of things by some on here.

Even though i have no problems with gay people etc ,just get on with your lives quietly,like we do.

36 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

but you only have to see in the comments sections of papers like the Daily Mail,what the average joe really thinks and its not what the average begging bowl Guardian reader thinks

It seems you think the average Daily Mail reader counts more than the average Guardian reader. Why?

And it seem many "newspapers" delete comments which they don't like. And then what people see is not the average but the bubble censored version of that average. And that happens on the left and the right. 

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you think the average Daily Mail reader counts more than the average Guardian reader. Why?

And it seem many "newspapers" delete comments which they don't like. And then what people see is not the average but the bubble censored version of that average. And that happens on the left and the right. 

Compared to papers like the DM the Gauardian has few readers.

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And maybe you should learn about kids and how they grow up and what they typically learn from the father and what they learn from the mother. Not surprisingly they learn different things from their male and female parents. This is why it is most healthy when kids have both mother and father taking care of them.

 

That doesn't mean that if a couple breaks up or one partner dies that the kids should be taken away from them. That would obviously be bad. But it also means that it is sub-optimal to let single people, or only male or only female couples adopt children.

The focus should be what is good for the children and not what the adults want.

As a life-long educator I find your comment un-informed to the point of being risible. You really don't even begin to grasp the fundamentals of childcare education or psychology.

It would be poib=ntless trying to discuss this with someone who is so utterly out of touch.

2 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Compared to papers like the DM the Gauardian has few readers.

Yes- this is true. What conclusion would you draw from that?