Jump to content

Thailand on track to legalise same-sex marriage


webfact

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Sad 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

 

 

 

Edited by KanchanaburiGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.......!

 

😂

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 





 

Edited by balo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 50

      After A Lifetime Of Adventure, Why Is It Now So Hard To Pop Off?

    2. 1

      Racism or "just" bad behavior at Pattaya City Hospital?

    3. 1

      Racism or "just" bad behavior at Pattaya City Hospital?

    4. 1

      A Radical Experiment: How Elon Musk Could Shake Up Washington

    5. 0

      The Guardian Steps Back from Elon Musk’s Platform X Amid Content Concerns

    6. 0

      Metropolitan Police Chief Warns of Drastic Budget Cuts Under Labour

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...