Thai LGBTQ+ Community Hotly Anticipates Same-Sex Union Bills

[EVENKEEL]

52 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

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.

So what part about it being better for a kid to be raised by a father and mother is wrong?

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

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

Looking at the bell curve that is not really surprising ...

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Thunglom said:

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.

Yeah, sorry, I am not in touch with the LBGTQ+/- whatever community.

But I listen to experts. You could try that. Maybe you learn something.

 

[Thunglom]

3 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

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

You might want to re-think that - especially if you are considering pint only editions.

here is some info about the Mail and the "Grauniad"

 

Daily Mail - average age of its readers was 58, it has a majority female readership, with women making up 52–55% of its readers.[

It’s readership is around 2.180 million, of whom approximately 1.407 million were in the ABC1 demographic and .773 million in the C2DE demographic.

 

The Guardian has three papers – UK, Australia and the USA (plus the Observer)

News from The Guardian, including that reported online, reaches more than 23 million UK adults each month.

 

 

 Daily Mail has also been criticised for its unreliability, its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement. In February 2017, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source. 

 

The Guardian paper's print edition was found to be the most trusted in the UK in the period from October 2017 to September 2018. It was also reported to be the most-read of the UK's "quality news-brands", including digital editions;

In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news,

 

 

Historically, the Guardian opposed Slavery, whilst the Daily Mail supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Thunglom

[Thunglom]

32 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

So what part about it being better for a kid to be raised by a father and mother is wrong?

QED - a false premise. You aren't even addressing the topic. Perhaps for your own benefit you might try and find where someone has suggested this,

[Thunglom]

20 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, sorry, I am not in touch with the LBGTQ+/- whatever community.

But I listen to experts. You could try that. Maybe you learn something.

 

You  ae indulging in a logical fallacy - and don't seem to understand how to raise citations for an argument.

[OneMoreFarang]

20 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

You  ae indulging in a logical fallacy - and don't seem to understand how to raise citations for an argument.

What would be the point?

Do you really expect from me to explain it to you in detail with quotes from the experts and citations?

Would you read any of it? And even if the experts would tell the opposite of what you think is true would you suddenly write: Thanks, now I understand. I change my mind?

qed

 

[Thunglom]

29 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What would be the point?

Do you really expect from me to explain it to you in detail with quotes from the experts and citations?

Would you read any of it? And even if the experts would tell the opposite of what you think is true would you suddenly write: Thanks, now I understand. I change my mind?

qed

 

You show no understanding of this at all,,,,I think you also don't realise the limitations of your abilities to understand either.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, Thunglom said:

You show no understanding of this at all,,,,I think you also don't realise the limitations of your abilities to understand either.

Me understanding it and you understanding that I understand it is not the same.

And it's not really my problem if you don't understand what I understand.

 

But now I will leavy you with your imagination that you understand it all. It is just too tiresome to argue with you.

[DezLez]

1 hour ago, Thunglom said:

You might want to re-think that - especially if you are considering pint only editions.

here is some info about the Mail and the "Grauniad"

 

Daily Mail - average age of its readers was 58, it has a majority female readership, with women making up 52–55% of its readers.[

It’s readership is around 2.180 million, of whom approximately 1.407 million were in the ABC1 demographic and .773 million in the C2DE demographic.

 

The Guardian has three papers – UK, Australia and the USA (plus the Observer)

News from The Guardian, including that reported online, reaches more than 23 million UK adults each month.

 

 

 Daily Mail has also been criticised for its unreliability, its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement. In February 2017, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source. 

 

The Guardian paper's print edition was found to be the most trusted in the UK in the period from October 2017 to September 2018. It was also reported to be the most-read of the UK's "quality news-brands", including digital editions;

In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news,

 

 

Historically, the Guardian opposed Slavery, whilst the Daily Mail supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Your post above is so biased with the way you have cherrypicked "data" from Wiki etc as to be  utterly misleading.  E.G. You quote  online figures for the Guardian but not for the DM just it's  daily printed figures.  I suggest you make them like for like!

 

You quote about criticisms of the DM (straight from Wiki) but ignore the number of awards, etc it has won.  I could go on.

 

You also comment as to which paper supported subjects which happened generations ago which are totally irrelevant to the topic supposed to be under discussion.

 

I also fail to see what the so called comparison has to do with the OP!

[zzaa09]

[newnative]

36 minutes 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.

     Yes, let's definitely focus on what is good for the children.  But, with the caveat that we live in an imperfect, diverse, and often messy world.  So, what is good for the children?  What some research is finding is that children do better when raised in a stable two-parent environment.  It doesn't matter if the two parents are straight or gay.  The key is a stable family environment--whether gay or straight--which can produce better outcomes. 

     It's true that some children raised by a single parent, gay or straight, can face some disadvantages.   Some single parents have to work longer hours, resulting in less family time, and some have lower incomes than a two-parent family, which can present some added challenges.   But, there have also been a number of strengths identified in being raised by a single parent, including a strong parent-child bond and a more independent and responsible child.    

     I wonder what is more, in your words, 'sub-optimal'--keeping a child in impersonal government foster care or allowing the child to be adopted by a single adult yearning to be a parent?  What I think would be an interesting study would be charting the outcomes of children adopted at birth by single parents, gay or straight, who have passed stringent adoption requirements, vs. children not adopted and raised in foster care until they age out.  Studies have shown that the earlier a child is adopted the better but I couldn't find anything focused solely on outcomes with single parent adoption.  

     Getting back to same-sex couples, one interesting study from the Netherlands, which had gay marriage before any other country, showed that children from same-sex families performed better in school, both at the primary and secondary level, than children from straight families.   Good to know that academic outcomes are not compromised for children in families lacking either a mother or a father in the equation.

     Other research also supports the growing body of data coming to the conclusion that children from same-sex marriages at least do equally as well as those from straight marriages.  It can be confusing, though, because some research reached different conclusions.  Happily, Cornell University has stepped in.

     Cornell took on the task of reviewing all the credible research studies it could find on the topic of the well-being of children raised by gay or lesbian parents.  They identified 79 scholarly studies.  Of those, 75 came to the conclusion that children raised by same-sex parents fared no worse than those raised by straight parents.  With the other 4, Cornell found that the research was flawed as most of the children studied had not actually been raised by same-sex parents but by parents with one partner who later came out as gay.   In any case, 75 out of 79 is good enough for me.

     One argument that is sometimes raised has to do with children of same-sex marriages being possibly bullied or ridiculed in school.  Likely this has occurred but should something that may or may not happen in the future nix the possibility of children being adopted by gay parents? 

    In an earlier post, I mentioned that in 1958, 96% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.  Imagine the bullying and discrimination a mixed-race child faced back then.  However, despite the possibility of bullying and discrimination, laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages were struck down; a fundamental equal right outweighed a possible, initial negative impact on the children of these unions.  

    Eventually, attitudes changed.  Now, there's been a complete reversal, with 94% of Americans supporting interracial marriage.  Quite a turn around.  Gay marriage and gay adoption are still relatively new but both have seen approval ratings increase as people adjust to change, and as they see that there has not been a negative impact with either.

[Jingthing]

Thai Civil unions are not marriages. This isn't even law yet and people are assuming Thai civil unions will include adoption rights. What's the point of this debate here on children without knowing that?

Of course LGBT people.with existing children will keep them and lesbians can have children after marriage anyway.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Jingthing

[Iamfalang]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Thai Civil unions are not marriages.

Let me know when we can get a Visa based on a civil union, hopefully with only 100 baht instead of 400,000.  400k is pretty cheap, it's dealing with a crazy person that's so difficult.  

 

when the cheap visa happens, I'm start wearing some rainbow socks.   

[Iamfalang]

10 minutes ago, newnative said:

I mentioned that in 1958, 96% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. 

you think in 1958 they were polling minorities.  Take the garbage polls now and multiply it by 1000.  

 

America will be racist for as long as I'm alive.  More quiet now.  A few more generations need to go before there might be a change.  In the 90's, amazingly racist.  00's, yeah racist but not only against blacks.   10's, don't remember.  

 

this topic is too difficult.  Two "good" parents can still ruin a kid.  A kid can ruin themselves.  A single mom can be the best, or the worst.  Single dad.....  Only thing I know is that a dad is generally better for a boy and a mom is generally better for a girl.  But not always, so there you go.  

 

Rich parents can easily be much worse, etc..... I've seen it all.

 

It will come down to the kid, their IQ, and after 30 they can't blame the parents for anything.  If they had trauma, they know to get help.  

 

two LGBT's?  Probably fine, actually.   

[Thunglom]

2 hours ago, DezLez said:

Your post above is so biased with the way you have cherrypicked "data" from Wiki etc as to be  utterly misleading.  E.G. You quote  online figures for the Guardian but not for the DM just it's  daily printed figures.  I suggest you make them like for like!

 

You quote about criticisms of the DM (straight from Wiki) but ignore the number of awards, etc it has won.  I could go on.

 

You also comment as to which paper supported subjects which happened generations ago which are totally irrelevant to the topic supposed to be under discussion.

 

I also fail to see what the so called comparison has to do with the OP!

I see you are taking baby-steps with Google - Now you need to learn the difference between "search" and "research" to form an opinion instead of "sealioning" - wiki is a great source of information - identifying a source as a good one would reinforce the argument. Keep up the good work!

Edited August 7, 2022 by Thunglom

[Woof999]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, sorry, I am not in touch with the LBGTQ+/- whatever community.

But I listen to experts. You could try that. Maybe you learn something.

 

JP is far from UNbiased on the subject of gender. He also doesn't believe in climate change and is the poster boy for many bible bashers.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Woof999
un before biased made a huge difference

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Woof999 said:

JP is far from UNbiased on the subject of gender. He also doesn't believe in climate change and is the poster boy for many bible bashers.

Did you read or hear that about him? That's where those description often come from.

 

Just watch his videos and listen to what he says. We all can learn a lot from him.

Currently I watch this video. Very interesting.

 

[Woof999]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

Did you read or hear that about him? That's where those description often come from.

 

Just watch his videos and listen to what he says. We all can learn a lot from him.

Currently I watch this video. Very interesting.

 

Read and formed my own opinions from watching. He's clearly an educated man and I agree with quite a few of his views. Just not those relevant to this topic and some others.

[josephbloggs]

On 6/10/2022 at 6:32 PM, TooMuchTime said:

Leave this garbage in the farang countries where it belongs.  People here will probably start urging Thailand to take in mid 20's male middle eastern "refugees"
 as well.

We have a Trump supporter / knuckle dragger.

[Thunglom]

Dragging up hackneyed definitions about what a family is – based largely on white Christian values is just  a cliché used by homophobes to try and justify their blinkered homophobic views. Then for good measure they try to imply a concern for the welfare of the children ...These are not real scientific reasons just a dogmatic outlook of based on a gut feeling based on nothing but prejudice

Edited August 7, 2022 by Thunglom

[blazes]

Drivel.

Edited August 7, 2022 by blazes

[blazes]

46 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

Dragging up hackneyed definitions about what a family is – based largely on white Christian values is just  a cliché used by homophobes to try and justify their blinkered homophobic views. Then for good measure they try to imply a concern for the welfare of the children ...These are not real scientific reasons just a dogmatic outlook of based on a gut feeling based on nothing but prejudice

  Such utterly bigoted drivel should not be allowed to go unchallenged.  What makes you so special that you feel free to parade your racism without fear of retribution?

Most Christian values, nothing to do with being White, are expressed very strongly by Black Christians, especially in Africa.  (Black) African bishops cause the worldwide Anglican church a lot of trouble by their being opposed to homosexuality in general, not just in particular.

  

How easily you resort to the playground abuse ("homophobia") when you come across someone whose opinions you disagree with.  And by resorting to racism you demonstrate the weakness of whatever argument you are trying to put across.  (In brief, you who talk much about citing references depend ultimately in mere assertions of what is good or bad, or, in other words, opinions - which of course you are at liberty to express till the cows come home.) 

[blazes]

6 hours ago, Thunglom said:

I see you are taking baby-steps with Google - Now you need to learn the difference between "search" and "research" to form an opinion instead of "sealioning" - wiki is a great source of information - identifying a source as a good one would reinforce the argument. Keep up the good work!

You should be careful about what you swear by in the business of "trusted" references.  You seem to be totally unaware of how fallible Wiki is as a reference (other than for what are undisputed facts, like birth and death and when and what).   But Wiki is littered with false opinions.

 

Try this test sometime: if there is some subject you know a lot about, see what Wiki has to say about it when it does not involve undisputed facts.  (In earlier days, I often used to caution my students about using Wiki uncritically.  What you need when reading Wiki, especially when it involves controversial people or political themes, is sufficient intelligence to sort out what is bias and what is fact.  And to be able to do that test satisfactorily you need to be able to thrust to one side your own biased opinion.)

 

See how often an entry on some supposed "far right" (as opposed to "loony left") controversial freak inserts the word "false" into the entry on that person.  

Here's a typical fictionalized example: why doesn't Wiki say (quite simply): "Trudeau makes the assertion that climate change will bring the world to an end by 2030", rather than (as they would) "Trudeau makes the false assertion that climate change will bring the world to an end by 2030",

 

We don't need that inclusion of "false" to know that everything emanating from that man's mouth is false beyond belief!!

 

Apologies for being long-winded.

[Thunglom]

32 minutes ago, blazes said:

  Such utterly bigoted drivel should not be allowed to go unchallenged.  What makes you so special that you feel free to parade your racism without fear of retribution?

Most Christian values, nothing to do with being White, are expressed very strongly by Black Christians, especially in Africa.  (Black) African bishops cause the worldwide Anglican church a lot of trouble by their being opposed to homosexuality in general, not just in particular.

  

How easily you resort to the playground abuse ("homophobia") when you come across someone whose opinions you disagree with.  And by resorting to racism you demonstrate the weakness of whatever argument you are trying to put across.  (In brief, you who talk much about citing references depend ultimately in mere assertions of what is good or bad, or, in other words, opinions - which of course you are at liberty to express till the cows come home.) 

QED - a perfect example!

[Thunglom]

15 minutes ago, blazes said:

You should be careful about what you swear by in the business of "trusted" references.  You seem to be totally unaware of how fallible Wiki is as a reference (other than for what are undisputed facts, like birth and death and when and what).   But Wiki is littered with false opinions.

 

Try this test sometime: if there is some subject you know a lot about, see what Wiki has to say about it when it does not involve undisputed facts.  (In earlier days, I often used to caution my students about using Wiki uncritically.  What you need when reading Wiki, especially when it involves controversial people or political themes, is sufficient intelligence to sort out what is bias and what is fact.  And to be able to do that test satisfactorily you need to be able to thrust to one side your own biased opinion.)

 

See how often an entry on some supposed "far right" (as opposed to "loony left") controversial freak inserts the word "false" into the entry on that person.  

Here's a typical fictionalized example: why doesn't Wiki say (quite simply): "Trudeau makes the assertion that climate change will bring the world to an end by 2030", rather than (as they would) "Trudeau makes the false assertion that climate change will bring the world to an end by 2030",

 

We don't need that inclusion of "false" to know that everything emanating from that man's mouth is false beyond belief!!

 

Apologies for being long-winded.

Avery blinkered and confused person..... almost every phrase is oxymoronic in nature

[newnative]

11 hours ago, Iamfalang said:

you think in 1958 they were polling minorities.  Take the garbage polls now and multiply it by 1000.  

 

America will be racist for as long as I'm alive.  More quiet now.  A few more generations need to go before there might be a change.  In the 90's, amazingly racist.  00's, yeah racist but not only against blacks.   10's, don't remember.  

 

this topic is too difficult.  Two "good" parents can still ruin a kid.  A kid can ruin themselves.  A single mom can be the best, or the worst.  Single dad.....  Only thing I know is that a dad is generally better for a boy and a mom is generally better for a girl.  But not always, so there you go.  

 

Rich parents can easily be much worse, etc..... I've seen it all.

 

It will come down to the kid, their IQ, and after 30 they can't blame the parents for anything.  If they had trauma, they know to get help.  

 

two LGBT's?  Probably fine, actually.   

     Yes, there will always be some racists.  But, there has been change in racial attitudes.  And, it doesn't need your 'A few more generations need to go before there might be a change' to see that change.  It's happening already.  A prince of Britain marries a bi-racial American and it's celebrated with a broadcast seen around the world.  

     A person can be racist to their heart's content in the voting booth; their vote is completely private.   To refresh your memory of another change in racial attitudes, Americans went into the private voting booths and freely chose to elect the son of an interracial marriage between a Black man and a White woman, along with his Black First Lady,  President of the United States.  Twice.   Nice it didn't take 'a few more generations' to see that change.

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, Thunglom said:

QED - a perfect example!

Looks like the misuse of Latin abbreviation is making a comeback (again).