Jump to content

Fears of discrimination in Thailand despite looming same sex marriage bill


webfact

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Discrimination??? Thailand is pretty much THE most LGBT friendly country in the world! 

Clearly you are not a gay man trying to ride a song-tau

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Discrimination??? Thailand is pretty much THE most LGBT friendly country in the world! 

Yes discrimination.

 

I think most westerners have an extremely superficial understanding of the actual situation for LGBT Thai people. 

 

LGBT rights in Thailand - Wikipedia

 

In 2013, the Bangkok Post said that "while Thailand is viewed as a tourist haven for same-sex couples, the reality for locals is that the law, and often public sentiment, is not so liberal."[9] A 2014 report by the United States Agency for International Development and the United Nations Development Programme said that LGBT people "still face discrimination affecting their social rights and job opportunities",[10] and "face difficulty gaining acceptance for non-traditional sexuality, even though the tourism authority has been promoting Thailand as a gay-friendly country"

Edited by Jingthing
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yet there is still not marriage equality here. 

I think most westerners have an extremely superficial understanding of the actual situation for LGBT Thai people. 

Of course that's the case. 

 

Heterosexuals do not have marriage equality here either. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Discrimination??? Thailand is pretty much THE most LGBT friendly country in the world! 

 

Thailand also prides itself as the land of Smiles, but you need to look closer. ..

 

Anyway what webfact posted is a very brief article, however true to form is chokeful of loose-ends and choppy statements so that opinions could be easily misconstrued (or maybe that's the intention - as often the case with this news outlet)- and spun away.

 

Right at the top,  "Fears of discrimination in Thailand" is a misleading title. 
Sweating out the details, tweaking the blueprint of a bill about marriage equality is the opposite of fears. Had there been fears this bill would not have gotten to where it is today. But stoking "Fears" is irresistible, it "sells newspapers" you see...
 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 4:51 PM, RobU said:

All of the balanced gay men I know despise gay activists and are extremely dubious of the gay pride movement they just want to get on with life.

 

The war against  discrimination has been won but charitable organisations like Stonewall need to keep pushing because they would lose income and eventually fade away because they are no longer necessary. Charity bosses make big money

 

Fact check 1st sentence: How many of those "balanced gay men I know"? Half a million? Or a couple of millions?

Fact check 2nd sentence: "The war against  discrimination has been won." By whom? Against which discrimination. If it's discrimination against gays, no it definitely has not.

 

Broad, sweeping statements with unfounded facts are called "propaganda."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, watthong said:

 

Thailand also prides itself as the land of Smiles, but you need to look closer. ..

 

Anyway what webfact posted is a very brief article, however true to form is chokeful of loose-ends and choppy statements so that opinions could be easily misconstrued (or maybe that's the intention - as often the case with this news outlet)- and spun away.

 

Right at the top,  "Fears of discrimination in Thailand" is a misleading title. 
Sweating out the details, tweaking the blueprint of a bill about marriage equality is the opposite of fears. Had there been fears this bill would not have gotten to where it is today. But stoking "Fears" is irresistible, it "sells newspapers" you see...
 

The whole article is just unnecessary fear-mongering and the headline is clickbait, if you ask me. The Thais won't have a problem with gay marriage, regardless of wording. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, watthong said:

 

Fact check 1st sentence: How many of those "balanced gay men I know"? Half a million? Or a couple of millions?

Fact check 2nd sentence: "The war against  discrimination has been won." By whom? Against which discrimination. If it's discrimination against gays, no it definitely has not.

 

Broad, sweeping statements with unfounded facts are called "propaganda."

 

Can you provide a few anecdotal examples of the discrimination gays suffer on a regular basis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Can you provide a few anecdotal examples of the discrimination gays suffer on a regular basis? 

 

It's sad, Mr ("Can you provide proof/annecdote/hearsay examples of...") One -and- One- Question- Only to hear the sound of one hand clapping...

Where's your pal, the one that you sent thumb up emojis to after each and every of his posts? Haven't heard a single beep from him since he got called out recently. You used to kiss the ground he walked on, IIRC.

But don't feel abandoned, we do enjoy your company here, as comic relief.

Edited by watthong
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, watthong said:

 

It's sad, Mr ("Can you provide proof/annecdote/hearsay examples of...") One -and- One- Question- Only to hear the sound of one hand clapping...

Where's your pal, the one that you sent thumb up emojis to after each and every of his posts? Haven't heard a single beep from him since he got called out recently. You used to kiss the ground he walked on, IIRC.

But don't feel abandoned, we do enjoy your company here, as comic relief.

Given your response, I think it safe to say you are able to provide a few anecdotal examples of the discrimination gays suffer on a regular basis, correct? 

 

That's what I thought, thanks. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 9:52 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Same sex couples are not the same as father and mother = parents.

Why don't we keep the definition of existing words?

Call them a gay couple or a female couple or whatever. They can't be both parents of the same child. 

 

Says who?

Merriam and Webster definition of "parents"

1

a: one that begets or brings forth offspring

just became parents of twins

b: a person who brings up and cares for another

foster parents

 

Nowhere does it mention "father and mother" or "the same child."

Main point is that gays can do both a) and b ) equally well, if not better.

If you want to live by your own standard, fine. Just don't apply it onto others.

Thank you very much.

 

  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, watthong said:

equally well, if not better

If you would have written equally, I wouldn't agree, but ok, I accept your argument.

But when you write "better" than you are just plain wrong. How can two men or two women be better parents than one woman and one man?

And please stay with the same situation, like all are non-alcoholics and similar conditions. There are always some parents which are better than others. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If you would have written equally, I wouldn't agree, but ok, I accept your argument.

But when you write "better" than you are just plain wrong. How can two men or two women be better parents than one woman and one man?

And please stay with the same situation, like all are non-alcoholics and similar conditions. There are always some parents which are better than others. 

 

 

Better because heterosexuals are all haters, and the kids might grow up to be Republicans. 

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

If you would have written equally, I wouldn't agree, but ok, I accept your argument.

But when you write "better" than you are just plain wrong. How can two men or two women be better parents than one woman and one man?

And please stay with the same situation, like all are non-alcoholics and similar conditions. There are always some parents which are better than others. 

 

 

Couldn't win the big argument, therefore had to settle on the small one...

That spells "pettiness."

Then adding a drag-queen Trumper image to support your "small one..."

That spells "desperation." 

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 9:29 AM, KhunLA said:

Like GOD, gays always have been here, and always will be.  Just accept it.

What's the saying? "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" (see Genesis chapter 2)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 3:55 PM, brianthainess said:

Well it only my personal opinion but we we'll wait an see, I just have have a feeling that staying here on a marriage visa/extension will not be allowed, I hope it is for all those involved, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

 

I guess up till now, at your tender old age, you never been taught to keep your gloomy outlook regarding other people's business to yourself? While nobody asks you to "hold your breath" for their own affair?  

 

"I hope it is for all those involved" yeah sure we really really believe you meant well-wishes (while predicting gloom and doom on us, "a marriage visa/extension will not be allowed") Oh yes, we have to "wait and see..." 

 

However for the likes of you who have neither say nor stake in gay marriage, you don't have to "wait and see..." So get off the line now and scoot. We don't need another busybody hypocrite like you. Go bark up another tree. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2024 at 2:32 PM, pacovl46 said:

The whole article is just unnecessary fear-mongering and the headline is clickbait, if you ask me. The Thais won't have a problem with gay marriage, regardless of wording. 

 

 

Webfact does what a checkout line tabloid has to do to get readership. Always grab a piece of news by the most sensationalistic angle, regardless whether that angle covers the rule or the exception. With matters regarding gender roles within the LGBTQ group, which is by nature rife with confusion, webfact would add a few potholes here and there to make sure readers have ground to sow their own biases. Case in point:
 

On 4/9/2024 at 12:00 AM, BangkokReady said:

 

It sounds like their concern is not about whether they can marry or not, but that the wording within the bill doesn't effectively mean: "If two biological females, one of whom now wants to be a man, are married and living with one of the couple's children, they will be legally considered a man and a woman and the legal parents of those children". 

 

 

 

Bias One : "one of whom now wants to be a man," - "One of whom," Thanadech has already gone through sex change, ie he has long passed the "wants to be a man" stage. In his mind he is now a man (whether the laws agree is another matter.) There's no mention of his girlfriend, the one whose child they are raising together, "now wants to be a man" either.

 

Bias Two: (they, the couple, are concerned) the bill doesn't effectively mean: they will be legally considered a man and a woman and the legal parents of those children." 
This is what Thanadech is quoted as saying in the article"

I want the equal marriage law to be passed. It will make my family complete like any other family of men and women.” Though something might be lost in the translation, "family of men and women" in this context should be understood as "straight family."  Thanadech wants equal rights for his family as those of a straight family. No where did he said that there must be a man and a woman to "make my family complete."
 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, watthong said:

Bias One : "one of whom now wants to be a man," - "One of whom," Thanadech has already gone through sex change, ie he has long passed the "wants to be a man" stage. In his mind he is now a man (whether the laws agree is another matter.) There's no mention of his girlfriend, the one whose child they are raising together, "now wants to be a man" either.

 

Largely meaningless.  The person in question still wants to be a man, and that is what they want the legislation to make legal.

 

You have neither successfully rebutted what I have claimed, nor have you pointed out any bias after stating "Bias One".

 

55 minutes ago, watthong said:

Bias Two: (they, the couple, are concerned) the bill doesn't effectively mean: they will be legally considered a man and a woman and the legal parents of those children." 
This is what Thanadech is quoted as saying in the article"

I want the equal marriage law to be passed. It will make my family complete like any other family of men and women.” Though something might be lost in the translation, "family of men and women" in this context should be understood as "straight family."  Thanadech wants equal rights for his family as those of a straight family. No where did he said that there must be a man and a woman to "make my family complete."

 

The article clearly states what is wanted:

 

"Activists say using “parents” and “mother and father” in legal terms will affirm those who identify as LGBTQ on equal terms with other couples."

 

They want the legislation to make them legally considered mother and father/parents to the child/children.

 

Once again, you've failed to rebut what I have claimed, and you have again used the word "Bias" without showing that I have displayed any bias.

 

You can't show that I am displaying any bias, as I have not done so.  I have merely comment on what is in the article.

 

You are wrong on all counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the entire article in the link.

I think there was a major error in translation confusing everyone.

Most of the ending part of the article contradicts the first part.

It's hard to debate an issue that is presented in such a strange manner.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, watthong said:

Webfact does what a checkout line tabloid has to do to get readership. Always grab a piece of news by the most sensationalistic angle, regardless whether that angle covers the rule or the exception. With matters regarding gender roles within the LGBTQ group, which is by nature rife with confusion, webfact would add a few potholes here and there to make sure readers have ground to sow their own biases. Case in point:
 

 

Bias One : "one of whom now wants to be a man," - "One of whom," Thanadech has already gone through sex change, ie he has long passed the "wants to be a man" stage. In his mind he is now a man (whether the laws agree is another matter.) There's no mention of his girlfriend, the one whose child they are raising together, "now wants to be a man" either.

 

Bias Two: (they, the couple, are concerned) the bill doesn't effectively mean: they will be legally considered a man and a woman and the legal parents of those children." 
This is what Thanadech is quoted as saying in the article"

I want the equal marriage law to be passed. It will make my family complete like any other family of men and women.” Though something might be lost in the translation, "family of men and women" in this context should be understood as "straight family."  Thanadech wants equal rights for his family as those of a straight family. No where did he said that there must be a man and a woman to "make my family complete."
 

Hey, still waiting for you to get back to us with a few anecdotal examples of the discrimination gays suffer on a regular basis. Did you forget?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 6:28 PM, bbi1 said:

What's the saying? "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" (see Genesis chapter 2)

 

I don't think it's useful to bring fairytales or religion into this discussion.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Read the entire article in the link.

I think there was a major error in translation confusing everyone.

Most of the ending part of the article contradicts the first part.

It's hard to debate an issue that is presented in such a strange manner.

 

 

It's difficult to participate in this discussion without seeing the text of the draft bill, but this is probably impossible and the first look we shall get at it will be after the bill is approved by both chambers of the parliament and subsequently published in the Royal Gazette.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, watthong said:

Webfact does what a checkout line tabloid has to do to get readership. Always grab a piece of news by the most sensationalistic angle, regardless whether that angle covers the rule or the exception. With matters regarding gender roles within the LGBTQ group, which is by nature rife with confusion, webfact would add a few potholes here and there to make sure readers have ground to sow their own biases. Case in point:
 

 

Bias One : "one of whom now wants to be a man," - "One of whom," Thanadech has already gone through sex change, ie he has long passed the "wants to be a man" stage. In his mind he is now a man (whether the laws agree is another matter.) There's no mention of his girlfriend, the one whose child they are raising together, "now wants to be a man" either.

 

Bias Two: (they, the couple, are concerned) the bill doesn't effectively mean: they will be legally considered a man and a woman and the legal parents of those children." 
This is what Thanadech is quoted as saying in the article"

I want the equal marriage law to be passed. It will make my family complete like any other family of men and women.” Though something might be lost in the translation, "family of men and women" in this context should be understood as "straight family."  Thanadech wants equal rights for his family as those of a straight family. No where did he said that there must be a man and a woman to "make my family complete."
 

Again, it's splitting hairs. No one cares. They can get married and rhats all that matters. The rest is woke BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

The article clearly states what is wanted:

 

"Activists say using “parents” and “mother and father” in legal terms will affirm those who identify as LGBTQ on equal terms with other couples."

 

They want the legislation to make them legally considered mother and father/parents to the child/children.


Probably webfact is sending out their own in-house "activists." Personally. I won't have this kind of "activists" working on my gay cause. "Parents," definitely, but "mother and father" as a same sex couple? No way Jose. Are you kidding? Us gays have gone too far in our quest for equality  to settle for this parental gender-divider. Such nonsense. Two mothers or two fathers can't do the job? Says who, considering the most commonly heard complaint from straight unions since millennium has been about mothers doing most of the child rearing chores.

 Nevertheless, the takeaway from outsiders looking in has taken on this twisted interpretation of the term "equal marriage" - embellishing with their own bias such as "one of whom wants to be a man"
 

23 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

The person in question still wants to be a man, and that is what they want the legislation to make legal.

 

 

 

FYI, bias = "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Or let me elaborate on that: the tendency to (mis)interpret other people's words, action or intention, based on one's personal preference or  inclination. 

Thanadech is not asking legislation to legalize his desire  "to be a man." He's asking for equal marriage (same sex marriage being equally legal as straight marriage). Which  means by doing that he has implicitly conceded that in the eye of the laws, he and his girlfriend are still of the same sex ie woman and woman. Not man and woman.

 

But if you still insist on applying the "man and woman" paradigm onto an "equal marriage" bill that us gay are hoping for, then you''re not only out of place, you're out of touch (and your bias is showing!)

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, watthong said:

Probably webfact is sending out their own in-house "activists." Personally. I won't have this kind of "activists" working on my gay cause. "Parents," definitely, but "mother and father" as a same sex couple? No way Jose. Are you kidding? Us gays have gone too far in our quest for equality  to settle for this parental gender-divider. Such nonsense. Two mothers or two fathers can't do the job? Says who, considering the most commonly heard complaint from straight unions since millennium has been about mothers doing most of the child rearing chores.

 Nevertheless, the takeaway from outsiders looking in has taken on this twisted interpretation of the term "equal marriage" - embellishing with their own bias such as "one of whom wants to be a man"

 

It's fairly obvious that these are people with a trans agenda asking for gender affirmation to be tacked onto a same-sex marriage bill.

 

17 hours ago, watthong said:

FYI, bias = "A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment." Or let me elaborate on that: the tendency to (mis)interpret other people's words, action or intention, based on one's personal preference or  inclination. 

Thanadech is not asking legislation to legalize his desire  "to be a man." He's asking for equal marriage (same sex marriage being equally legal as straight marriage). Which  means by doing that he has implicitly conceded that in the eye of the laws, he and his girlfriend are still of the same sex ie woman and woman. Not man and woman.

 

But if you still insist on applying the "man and woman" paradigm onto an "equal marriage" bill that us gay are hoping for, then you''re not only out of place, you're out of touch (and your bias is showing!)

 

I'm not applying anything.  Nor am I showing any bias.  I'm simply discussing what was said in the article.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I have said, and what was said in the article.

 

All parties claim to be worried about the wording.  So it isn't just about being treated equally and being allowed to be married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

It's fairly obvious that these are people with a trans agenda asking for gender affirmation to be tacked onto a same-sex marriage bill.

 

 

I'm not applying anything.  Nor am I showing any bias.  I'm simply discussing what was said in the article.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I have said, and what was said in the article.

 

All parties claim to be worried about the wording.  So it isn't just about being treated equally and being allowed to be married.

Once they get the "gender affirming care" thing going, will trans kids be able to get puberty blockers and have their genitals mutilated under the 30-Baht scheme? Asking for a friend.... 

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.










×
×
  • Create New...