Thailand on track to legalise same-sex marriage

[SABloke]

Why lie about "6 days" though? The most half-assed explanation/apology attempt ever. It's literally been almost double that, but George pulls in with a 6 day apology. WTF

[digger70]

Marriage should only be allowed between Biological Male and Female.

That's the only way they can start a family having children. 

Children must have a Father and a Mother,Not a made up father and/or Made up mother . This is what I think, this is Not about Religion.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

If they want to be together, let them be together.

If they want to have legal rights with each other, i.e. if one of them goes to hospital, fine.

But make sure they can't adopt children. Children should have a male father and a female mother.

It's in the interest of the children so that they grow up in "normal" conditions. Don't force children into male/male or female/female partnerships. 

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If they want to be together, let them be together.

If they want to have legal rights with each other, i.e. if one of them goes to hospital, fine.

But make sure they can't adopt children. Children should have a male father and a female mother.

It's in the interest of the children so that they grow up in "normal" conditions. Don't force children into male/male or female/female partnerships. 

So don't let single parents keep their children?

Or better unadopted kids have no family than a gay family.

The ignorant mean spirited bigotry is stunning. 

[Jingthing]

32 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Marriage should only be allowed between Biological Male and Female.

That's the only way they can start a family having children. 

Children must have a Father and a Mother,Not a made up father and/or Made up mother . This is what I think, this is Not about Religion.

 

What you think is wrong. 

[jak2002003]

18 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

People can live happily in relationships without a piece of paper. 

 

Leave marriage to be between a real biological  man and real biological woman. :)

I that case make male female marriage illegal. 

 

If marriage has no advantages then why do straight people do it? 

[jak2002003]

10 hours ago, Bobthegimp said:

That wasn't a troll post, it was the post from a man who remained in a monogamous marriage for 16 years.  

 

I don't know a single gay man who lasted 16 weeks in a state of monogamy, much less 16 years.  It's bloody hard, as any man who has been through it can tell you. 

 

My gay acquaintances wanted the benefits and status that accompany marriage, but then for the institution to accommodate their polyamourus lifestyle.  That's why no sober person can call a gay union a "marriage" with a straight (no pun intended) face.  A gay man understands marriage about as well as I understand the San Francisco bath house scene, which is not at all. 

I am gay and have been married to my partner I a monogamous relationship for 16 years and together for 25 years. 

 

Most of my straight married friends are divorced or had affairs. And single straight guys sleep around jsut as much as some gays. 

[JeffersLos]

10 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

I that case make male female marriage illegal. 

 

If marriage has no advantages then why do straight people do it? 

 

Sure. A very good idea. Humanity would likely be better off. :)

[digger70]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What you think is wrong. 

Read my post if you can.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Part 1:

 

Marriage is a legal contract between two people; a contract that is acknowledged and accepted by the government. It could also be between 3 or 4 or 5 (or more) if we wanted, but... in this culture... we haven't accepted that idea. Yet. This contract basically says that the rights and obligations of one... become the rights and obligations of both. It's more complex than that, of course, and there are numerous exceptions. But that's the gist of it.

 

Because this contract is acknowledged and accepted by the government, it is also acknowledged and accepted by others; people and organisations like hospitals, insurance companies, landlords, banks and other lenders, etc. Many others.

 

In this regard, marriage is not "just a piece of paper." It is a contactual commitment that has numerous and far reaching implications; not just for the two parties so committed, but also for those who interact with them.

 

Part 2:

 

Marriage is a declaration made by two people that they intend to be committed and dedicated to each other for the rest of their lives. It is a declaration made to friends and family... and the world. It is an affirmation: "We believe the love we feel now is strong enough to last forever."

 

Marriage is not just a legal commitment; it is also an emotional commitment---one witnessed by the government, as well as your friends and family, either directly or indirectly. (Because you might easily break your legal contract, but may not easily break the emotional commitment you've made to your friends and family!)

 

*****************

 

Marriage is not "just a piece of paper."

 

******************

 

In my opinion:

 

If two people want to and are willing to legally bind themselves together in the way that "being married" does....... I can't see any reason to deny that, regardless of the gender/sex pairing involved: male/male, male/female, female/female. And if we're JUST talking about a legal commitment, then who cares what you call it?

 

Is this a "Marriage?" Should we call them "Married?"

 

Sure, SO WHAT!

 

Don't we all know the saying, "if it waddles like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck........ it's a duck!"?

 

Haven't we all heard the Shakespeare line "A rose any other name would smell as sweet?"

 

I just don't understand people tripping over the word "Marriage/Married"........ when most seem to be okay with letting them have all the things that being married consists of........ EXCEPT THE NAME!

 

And if the commitment they are making is MORE than just the "legal" commitment? If they are making the emotional commitment? A commitment they are shouting out to their friends, their family... and the world?

 

Well sorry, if you're a person who celebrates MARRIAGE... why would you do anything but celebrate THAT marriage? Why would someone insist they call their declaration something stupid like a "Civil Union"... when the word MARRIAGE... works just fine?

 

If the only thing you're tripping over is the TERMINOLOGY......... LET IT GO! 😂

 

************

 

Should they make "Same-sex Marriage" legal?

 

Absolutely!

 

There is simply no GOOD reason not to!

 

 

 

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, digger70 said:

Marriage should only be allowed between Biological Male and Female.

That's the only way they can start a family having children. 

Children must have a Father and a Mother,Not a made up father and/or Made up mother . This is what I think, this is Not about Religion.

 

That very idea of marriage comes directly from religion. So is everything to do with religion. 

 

Also, many male / female couples can not have children for various reasons...would you not allow them to marry if they can't have kids? 

 

I don't know what country you are from, but just look and the numbers of how many straight marriages end in divorce, how many families have kids from precious relationships, how many children are raised by a single mother or father? It's even worse that there are some many cases straight couples abusing or even killing their children...

 

Children have more harm from being raised in a disfunctional, unhappy same sex marriage household, than they ever could being raised my parents who really love them in a stable relationship..be that straight of same sex couples or even a single parent. 

 

Also, many people have kids out of marriage, and many gay people have children already from precious relationships, adoption or fostering. Do you want to insist these children are removed from their parents and given to married straight people? 

 

Frankly, your argeume that kids are better off in the care of only straight married couples is groundkess. Where are your statistics on that? 

 

 

[Bobthegimp]

4 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

And single straight guys sleep around jsut as much as some gays

 

We all would if we could, but women are the gatekeepers of sex.  When you've got the sexual morals of men x 2 things go off the rails and you end up with the fast tracking, popper huffing lifestyle.  Straight people don't bareback 12 strangers a night in bath houses. 

 

Congratulations on being the exception that proves the rule where monogamy is concerned.  We both know the reality about the vast majority of homosexual relationships, and you didn't try to sidestep the issue by stating some drivel about "not being a monolith".  

 

Will any gay posters come clean about the prolific promiscuity amongst gay men? It seems like I'm the only straight guy who has been told the stories by gay men who don't try to pass themselves off as monks.  My older sister was a fag hag and most of her friends spent a fair bit of time at our house.  Aside from one guy who was a serial  rapist (drugging Russian sailors) they were all decent guys. 

[Puccini]

16 hours ago, SABloke said:

Why lie about "6 days" though? The most half-assed explanation/apology attempt ever. It's literally been almost double that, but George pulls in with a 6 day apology. WTF

 

What "6 days" are you taking about?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Bobthegimp said:

 

We all would if we could, but women are the gatekeepers of sex.  When you've got the sexual morals of men x 2 things go off the rails and you end up with the fast tracking, popper huffing lifestyle.  Straight people don't bareback 12 strangers a night in bath houses. 

 

Congratulations on being the exception that proves the rule where monogamy is concerned.  We both know the reality about the vast majority of homosexual relationships, and you didn't try to sidestep the issue by stating some drivel about "not being a monolith".  

 

Will any gay posters come clean about the prolific promiscuity amongst gay men? It seems like I'm the only straight guy who has been told the stories by gay men who don't try to pass themselves off as monks.  My older sister was a fag hag and most of her friends spent a fair bit of time at our house.  Aside from one guy who was a serial  rapist (drugging Russian sailors) they were all decent guys. 

You seem to be enjoying yourself spreading negative stereotypes about gay people. I will say it again. Gay people are not a monolith and that is a FACT. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

You seem to be enjoying yourself spreading negative stereotypes about gay people. I will say it again. Gay people are not a monolith and that is a FACT. 

.

Who IS a "monolith?"

 

I mean, if you're trying to make a point by saying "Gay people are not a monolith," it doesn't have much meaning if all you're saying is they, too, are not a thing... that no one else is, anyway!

 

So, who IS a "monolith?"

 

Once you've clarified who IS "a monolith"... and once we understand exactly how you've categorised them to justify calling them that... then we can better understand what you mean when you say, "Gay people are NOT a monolith."

 

I mean, If NO ONE can rightly be called "a monolith"...

 

...then saying "Gay people are not a monolith"... twice... is kind of a meaningless point, don'cha think?

 

So I ask yet again...

 

Who IS "a monolith?"

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

Who IS a "monolith?"

 

I mean, if you're trying to make a point by saying "Gay people are not a monolith," it doesn't have much meaning if all you're saying is they, too, are not a thing... that no one else is, anyway!

 

So, who IS a "monolith?"

 

Once you've clarified who IS "a monolith"... and once we understand exactly how you've categorised them to justify calling them that... then we can better understand what you mean when you say, "Gay people are NOT a monolith."

 

I mean, If NO ONE can rightly be called "a monolith"...

 

...then saying "Gay people are not a monolith"... twice... is kind of a meaningless point, don'cha think?

 

So I ask yet again...

 

Who IS "a monolith?"

 

 

 

That's right. No group is a monolith.

Saying all gays do this or that is ignorance and bigotry just as if you said something like that about other groups.

You're just playing games. You know what I meant. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That's right. No group is a monolith.

Saying all gays do this or that is ignorance and bigotry just as if you said something like that about other groups.

You're just playing games. You know what I meant. 

.

No, what I know is there's such a thing as collective nouns, and that it's generally considered acceptable to use them if we are describing something that is stereotypically true of that particular group.

 

What I know is, we accept the use of these collective nouns even though we know it will always be inaccurate and unfair to at least some of the people in that group.

 

What I know is... 

 

...It is not necessarily ignorance or bigotry, just because someone chooses to  use one of these collective nouns. That for it to become "ignorance or bigotry," one must normally use some kind of superlative like "all" or "none." (Thereby intentionally including those who might otherwise have only been innocently included.)

 

(Note that in your response, you, yourself, had to add the word all  to "Saying all gays do this or that..." to make your point. But... did the person you originally responded to use the word "all"... or did you leap to that conclusion, all on your own?)

 

What I'm pretty sure I know is...

 

The statements that got the snooty "Gays are not a monolith" response were merely using a common collective noun, and didn't deserve to be singled-out AS IF what they were saying was "ignorant or bigoted."

 

What I know is...

 

People who can't distinguish between the malicious use of collective nouns and an innocent use of collective nouns...  probably should keep their High-and-Mighty comments to themselves.

 

But hey, what do I know.......!

 

😂

[digger70]

22 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

That very idea of marriage comes directly from religion. So is everything to do with religion. 

 

Also, many male / female couples can not have children for various reasons...would you not allow them to marry if they can't have kids? 

 

I said that's what I think Ok.

As for religion for me it has nothing to do with that, you can say what you like .

I didn't say that people can't get married if they can't have kids ,you said that.

That would be stupid to say that isn't it  most people don't know if they can have kids until they try to have kids after they get married.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

No, what I know is there's such a thing as collective nouns, and that it's generally considered acceptable to use them if we are describing something that is stereotypically true of that particular group.

 

What I know is, we accept the use of these collective nouns even though we know it will always be inaccurate and unfair to at least some of the people in that group.

 

What I know is... 

 

...It is not necessarily ignorance or bigotry, just because someone chooses to  use one of these collective nouns. That for it to become "ignorance or bigotry," one must normally use some kind of superlative like "all" or "none." (Thereby intentionally including those who might otherwise have only been innocently included.)

 

(Note that in your response, you, yourself, had to add the word all  to "Saying all gays do this or that..." to make your point. But... did the person you originally responded to use the word "all"... or did you leap to that conclusion, all on your own?)

 

What I'm pretty sure I know is...

 

The statements that got the snooty "Gays are not a monolith" response were merely using a common collective noun, and didn't deserve to be singled-out AS IF what they were saying was "ignorant or bigoted."

 

What I know is...

 

People who can't distinguish between the malicious use of collective nouns and an innocent use of collective nouns...  probably should keep their High-and-Mighty comments to themselves.

 

But hey, what do I know.......!

 

😂

You know how to try to derail a topic with petty arcane poppycock.

[PremiumLane]

On 11/24/2023 at 9:54 AM, digger70 said:

Marriage should only be allowed between Biological Male and Female.

That's the only way they can start a family having children. 

Children must have a Father and a Mother,Not a made up father and/or Made up mother . This is what I think, this is Not about Religion.

 

 

Yes must get all confused when cis couples can't have children, or don't want children. Do you stamp your little feet and say they can't get married, cos "that is what I think"... you clown

[PremiumLane]

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

No, what I know is there's such a thing as collective nouns, and that it's generally considered acceptable to use them if we are describing something that is stereotypically true of that particular group.

 

What I know is, we accept the use of these collective nouns even though we know it will always be inaccurate and unfair to at least some of the people in that group.

 

What I know is... 

 

...It is not necessarily ignorance or bigotry, just because someone chooses to  use one of these collective nouns. That for it to become "ignorance or bigotry," one must normally use some kind of superlative like "all" or "none." (Thereby intentionally including those who might otherwise have only been innocently included.)

 

(Note that in your response, you, yourself, had to add the word all  to "Saying all gays do this or that..." to make your point. But... did the person you originally responded to use the word "all"... or did you leap to that conclusion, all on your own?)

 

What I'm pretty sure I know is...

 

The statements that got the snooty "Gays are not a monolith" response were merely using a common collective noun, and didn't deserve to be singled-out AS IF what they were saying was "ignorant or bigoted."

 

What I know is...

 

People who can't distinguish between the malicious use of collective nouns and an innocent use of collective nouns...  probably should keep their High-and-Mighty comments to themselves.

 

But hey, what do I know.......!

 

😂

 

What is it with your snowflakes getting all upset cos people want to use different pronouns"? You sound a bit fragile - "The malicious use of collective nouns" hahaha you heard the dribble you come out with?

[Woof999]

On 11/23/2023 at 4:19 PM, JeffersLos said:

People can live happily in relationships without a piece of paper. 

 

Leave marriage to be between a real biological  man and real biological woman. :)

 

On 11/23/2023 at 8:46 PM, JeffersLos said:

Another reason not to be be pro gay marriage. :) 

 

On 11/23/2023 at 10:24 PM, JeffersLos said:

They have the same CHOICE.

 

A gay man can marry a women, the same as every other man.

 

A gay woman can marry a man, the same as every other woman.

 

:)

 

Fortunately for the rest of the world, there are fewer people with this type of opinion each and every year.

 

 

[digger70]

1 hour ago, PremiumLane said:

 

Yes must get all confused when cis couples can't have children, or don't want children. Do you stamp your little feet and say they can't get married, cos "that is what I think"... you clown

What's wrong with you  can't you read ? .I never said .that don't make up stories

If you can't read properly Don't Reply.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You know how to try to derail a topic with petty arcane poppycock.

.

No, the thread was "derailed" by someone making the meaningless observation that "Gays are not a monolith," hoping, I assume, to make themselves look oh-so-smart or oh-so-understanding of the plight of gays:

 

"Look at me, I'm a defender of the cause!" (Shh, even though I did it by declaring that "Gays" are not a thing that I, myself, have acknowledged that NO ONE is! )

 

Wonder who THAT might have been, eh?

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

No, the thread was "derailed" by someone making the meaningless observation that "Gays are not a monolith," hoping, I assume, to make themselves look oh-so-smart or oh-so-understanding of the plight of gays:

 

"Look at me, I'm a defender of the cause!" (Shh, even though I did it by declaring that "Gays" are not a thing that I, myself, have acknowledged that NO ONE is! )

 

Wonder who THAT might have been, eh?

You're just trolling now. Find a more gullible target. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're just trolling now. Find a more gullible target. 

.

No, virtually everything I have said has been substantive, actually. Points made and supported.

 

Yours... not so much.

[balo]

In the future all sorts of genders will have kids, get used to it. The kids will probably have a normal life, but it depends on the society and all that. As long as they are not in danger of being abused and they stay away from pedos and all that I see no issues with it. 





 

[daveAustin]

On 11/23/2023 at 4:01 PM, Bobthegimp said:

Not only should gays be allowed to marry, they should be forced to do so, and live forever in a monogamous relationship. 

 

Beware of what you wish for my gay friends.  There's a price to pay if one enters a legitimate marriage.  No more fast tracking, poppers and bath houses for you my friends. Your mate must be all things to you. 

Boomer-esque twaddle! Not gay but this is a step forward for any modern society even if the current questionable Thai gov is doing it as an agenda. The Stone Age era Muslim countries should take note. 

[Ben Zioner]

Mankind steadily on its way to  doom...  

 

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22

[MarkBR]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:24 PM, bignok said:

Which is bigotry. Why cant you marry 2 or 3?

Maybe you should read up on laws. Polygamy is illegal in virtually all countries