Thailand's Marriage Equality Bill to Become Law Next Month

[Jingthing]

It will be soon be the law in Thailand.

Do we still debate whether opposite sex marriage should be legal in Thailand?

I thought not.

It's just marriage.

[Fairynuff]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Can they legally adopt children? I hope not.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that “they” can have their own?

[Fairynuff]

3 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

id  like to see a  study of  how many of  those raised became gay themselves when older

Why?

[Fairynuff]

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Any proof for that?

Yes…deep inside his head.

[Fairynuff]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It's not.

Next thing you will tell me a child is born as a neutral and then sometime later it should decide if it wants to be a boy or a girl, or something in between, or one day this and the next day that. That's all BS. There are some facts in life which are plain obvious, even if the work crowd doesn't want to acknowledge this. 

As usual, when you’ve been proven wrong you go off on some weird tangent.

[Fairynuff]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

then woke happened.

But not to you, much to your detriment. At this point I should ask what woke means, but I know you won’t be able to answer.

[Fairynuff]

1 hour ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

i wasnt condemning it i was interested how many follwed their "parents" in such a way you often see kids do what their Fathers/Mothers  did

Your comment suggests that a person’s sexuality is learned behaviour, it definitely is not.

[Ebumbu]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And obviously in your wisdom you know how I was educated. Nuff said.

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You mean the research which you selected shows what you want to see.

I am sure I could line up lots of research which supports my point of view. 

So, show your research instead of sprouting nonsense.

[spidermike007]

40 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I think you meant to say couples, without the added "normal"!

Not really. These days couples come in many forms besides the normal heterosexual couples, so I was referring to normal couples as heterosexual couples, however that was in no way a judgment as to that's the way it should be. 

[sidjameson]

5 hours ago, Ebumbu said:

 

 

Extensive research indicates that children raised by same-sex couples exhibit health and well-being outcomes comparable to those raised by opposite-sex couples. A 2010 meta-analysis of 33 studies found no significant differences in behavioral, educational, emotional, or social outcomes between these groups of children. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.in/The-scientific-truth-about-kids-who-grow-up-with-same-sex-parents/articleshow/47558855.cms

 

Similarly, a 2015 study concluded that children with same-sex parents are as socially well-adjusted as their peers with different-sex parents.

 

https://www.healthday.com/healthday-tv/sexual-health/kids-with-same-sex-parents-are-socially-well-adjusted-study-finds-2657393641.html

 

Moreover, a 2024 report analyzing two decades of data found that children in same-sex households fare just as well in academic performance, psychological health, and social well-being as those with heterosexual parents. 

 

https://www.them.us/story/marriage-equality-didnt-ruin-society-study

 

These findings are supported by major professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association, which states that lesbian and gay parents are as capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_parenting
 

Will this change your mind? Unlikely. But, the science is clear. 

But comparing a same sex couples child's outcome to the general population maybe problematic. You're comparing two highly motivated, organised and relatively stable people who clearly want a child with a general population who often are the exact opposite of that.

Compare same sex couples with a cohort of heterosexual IVF users for example would be fairer.

[freedomnow]

Q) Who pays Sindod ?

 

A) The one with the longest Frankfurter of COOOOOOOOOOURSE.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

55 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I think you meant to say couples, without the added "normal"!

What is so difficult to understand about the word normal couple?

Man and woman can have babies together, and they did that for millions of years. That is normal. It's not so difficult.

[OneMoreFarang]

39 minutes ago, Fairynuff said:

But not to you, much to your detriment. At this point I should ask what woke means, but I know you won’t be able to answer.

Everybody knows what woke means, only the woke somehow pretend not to understand it.

If you have to explain to people that you are not a he or a she and you insist you are they then you are woke. Just one of those examples.

[scottiejohn]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What is so difficult to understand about the word normal couple?

Man and woman can have babies together, and they did that for millions of years. That is normal. It's not so difficult.

A Couple means two!

No need for the superfluous "normal"!

[OneMoreFarang]

23 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

So, show your research instead of sprouting nonsense.

Do you really expect from me to work for you for free?

Pay me enough and I might consider trying to educate you.

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you really expect from me to work for you for free?

Pay me enough and I might consider trying to educate you.

You are supposed to support your so called fact(s) i.a.w. forum rules!

It is not up to us to do YOUR job!

 

PS; i.a.w. = In accordance with!

[transam]

5 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

A Couple means two!

No need for the superfluous "normal"!

How were you created, were the couple of the same gender, or not...........?   

 

Link please, as you require one.....🙄

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, scottiejohn said:

You are supposed to support your so called fact i.a.w forum rules!

It is not up to us to do YOUR job!

 

PS; i.a.w. = In accordance with!

Next thing you ask me to explain to you why the earth is not flat.

No, I won't explain that to you and other things which are obvious.

[Fairynuff]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Everybody knows what woke means, only the woke somehow pretend not to understand it.

If you have to explain to people that you are not a he or a she and you insist you are they then you are woke. Just one of those examples.

So you don’t know then

[Foxx]

Just looking at famous gay people who have children.  In no particular order:

Ricky Martin

Elton John

Matt Bohmer

Neil Patrick Harris

Tan France

BD Wong

Cynthia Nixon

Jodie Foster

Tom Daley

Lance Bass

Perez Hilton

Wanda Sykes

Pete Buttigieg

 

I would think that any child of any of these people would be most fortunate.

 

Edit:  Just to add:

Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Anderson Cooper

 

[Moonlover]

5 hours ago, CM Dad said:

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

5 hours ago, CM Dad said:

Why not?

I believe the last paragraph covers it.

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

This holistic approach aims to guarantee full parity with heterosexual couples in establishing and nurturing families,

And I agree. I'd rather see a kid brought up by a lover couple of whatever gender they happen to be, than by a gnarled old granny who has no vested interest in the child's future. I see that far too often around here.

[KannikaP]

15 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

You are supposed to support your so called fact(s) i.a.w. forum rules!

It is not up to us to do YOUR job!

 

PS; i.a.w. = In accordance with!

Why did you not type 'in accordance with' in your first sentence, instead of having to add a PS to tell us all what it means?

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

 

I believe the last paragraph covers it.

 

And I agree. I'd rather see a kid brought up by a lover couple of whatever gender they happen to be, than by a gnarled old granny who has no vested interest in the child's future. I see that far too often around here.

Where has your 'gnarled old granny' come from, and where have you seen them too often......?  🤔

[Jingthing]

24 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Just looking at famous gay people who have children.  In no particular order:

Ricky Martin

Elton John

Matt Bohmer

Neil Patrick Harris

Tan France

BD Wong

Cynthia Nixon

Jodie Foster

Tom Daley

Lance Bass

Perez Hilton

Wanda Sykes

Pete Buttigieg

 

I would think that any child of any of these people would be most fortunate.

 

Edit:  Just to add:

Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Anderson Cooper

 

I'll never forgive Silver Fox Cooper for throwing Kathy Griffin under the bus.

[OneMoreFarang]

9 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Why did you not type 'in accordance with' in your first sentence, instead of having to add a PS to tell us all what it means?

He wanted to show how educated he is.

And then he wanted to help us not so educated to be able to understand him.

Wow, he must be really smart. 😉 

[KannikaP]

30 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Just looking at famous gay people who have children.  In no particular order:

Ricky Martin

Elton John

Matt Bohmer

Neil Patrick Harris

Tan France

BD Wong

Cynthia Nixon

Jodie Foster

Tom Daley

Lance Bass

Perez Hilton

Wanda Sykes

Pete Buttigieg

 

I would think that any child of any of these people would be most fortunate.

 

Edit:  Just to add:

Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Anderson Cooper

 

Of course, because their 'Parents' are Loaded. 

How would it be for a Thia child lumbered with a same-sex Thai teenage couple of 'not normal' parents?

[Ebumbu]

1 hour ago, sidjameson said:

But comparing a same sex couples child's outcome to the general population maybe problematic. You're comparing two highly motivated, organised and relatively stable people who clearly want a child with a general population who often are the exact opposite of that.

Compare same sex couples with a cohort of heterosexual IVF users for example would be fairer.

 

Sorry if you didn't get the memo: gays and lesbians are the general population. Get used to it. 

[scottiejohn]

23 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Why did you not type 'in accordance with' in your first sentence, instead of having to add a PS to tell us all what it means?

In order to educate people so that those who did not know this common UK business abbreviation would be better informed in future!

🤣

[KannikaP]

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

In order to educate people so that those who did not know this common UK business abbreviation would be better informed in future!

🤣

We don't all need educating in 'Business abbreviations'.  When in the future (ITF) will you be using it again (UIA).