Thai Lesbians Banned From Marriage On Valentines Day

[granuaile]

I guess lots of us came to this country because it's so different to others…………………

Thailand is a nation of freedom, where free people have the freedom to live their lives as they might choose, as long as we don't mess up the freedom of other people to also live their lives the way they choose too. It's okay if a couple of women or a couple of men want to spend the rest of their current lives together as they have the freedom to choose to do, but if they try to inflict their own beliefs on the rest of us, who also maintain that same right to get married in the usual way as we have the right to impress a lady who might ever make her mind up to choose to do so, then they can expect the same retribution in return.

Live and let live.

Marriage in the true sense requires two genders for good reason. Don't phuck around with the lives of normal people and the world is your oyster - have a fun time.

OMG, someone is forcing you to marry another man.... ?

[PeaceBlondie]

Americans do irony, too.

[Jingthing]

Americans do irony, too.

True, but we don't do windows.

[granuaile]

Thank you to those who have spoken up for this brave couple.

I fail to see the bravery, it was just a cheap and pointless publicity stunt as gay marriage is not allowed in Thailand or many other countries, even in California. I think people get sick of hearing about the 'rights' of minorities and this sort of posturing. I doubt if gay marriage will ever be allowed in Thailand. Nobody is saying they should be discriminated against, but most people feel gay marriage is not acceptable, tough!

It was not pointless, only through action can anything really change. Denying someone a right is discrimination no matter what and if that right is not denied in the first place nobody would have to hear about ity. To those who would deny us basic rights, and we struggle for them anyway, I say tough too.

But it's not their 'right' to demand whatever they think they are entitled to against the morality of religion and public opinion. Even California has changed it's mind on same sex marriage. They are not being discriminated against any more than i am by not having the 'right' to stay in Thailand on my own terms. Gays cannot marry in Thailand, probably never will, get over it.

That does not mean that people cannot lobby for and push for change including seeking the recognition of marriage. There is nothing illegal in Thailand about wanting to be happy, about trying to have one's relationship recognized.... If someone believes in same sex marriage, why get over it... The rational think to do is to push to change the law... Perhaps that should include lobbying for the criminalization of heterosexual marriage? Or requiring an IQ test?

[Jingthing]

If South Africa can have legal gay marriage, so can Thailand. Doesn't Thaksin think he is Nelson Mandella?

[granuaile]

If South Africa can have legal gay marriage, so can Thailand. Doesn't Thaksin think he is Nelson Mandella?

Ahhh but they had Nelson Mandela. And Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu who supports same-sex marriage and said that homophobia is a crime against humanity.'

[Jingthing]

But its still amazing. Africa along with the middle east excluding the wonderful pro gay democracy of Israel is the most anti gay region on earth. If it can happen in Africa, it can definitely happen in SE Asia.

[tooninthai]

Thank you to those who have spoken up for this brave couple.

I fail to see the bravery, it was just a cheap and pointless publicity stunt as gay marriage is not allowed in Thailand or many other countries, even in California. I think people get sick of hearing about the 'rights' of minorities and this sort of posturing. I doubt if gay marriage will ever be allowed in Thailand. Nobody is saying they should be discriminated against, but most people feel gay marriage is not acceptable, tough!

Ah ... so you are saying that gay and lesbian couples should not be discriminated against, but should not be allowed to marry?

OK ... Let me explain this to you in very simple terms. Marraige is a civil institution particularly in Thailand at the government offices. Gays and lesbians are part of civil society. Marraige gives certain rights and exerts certain obligations on its participants. The first right it gives is that you are automatically next-of-kin to your spouse. This is a MAJOR right and to deny it to a committed couple based upon gender is discriminatory. You have the RIGHT to visit your next of kin in the hospital. Gays and lesbians have routinely been turned away by bigoted or greedy family members (birth family -- as obviously committed partners are a family in their own right even though the law does not recognize this).Next of kin status determines who can give consent in medical emergencies, since many gays and lesbians are estranged from their birth families this is a major issue in their personal rights to medical decisions. The partner will know the other partner's wishes on medical matters. Next-of-kin status also determines inheretance issues. In far too many cases gay or lesbian partners who have been in commited relationships for years have not only lost the love of their life but then to add to the sorrow have had the partner's family swoop in and steal everything that they worked together to build -- and steal it legally because of the discriminatory marraige policies in many places in the world today.

I could go on about taxes and insurance and custody etc etc etc ... but if you didn't get it just from the next-of-kin issue ... you just won't get it at all!

Then why not make a Will? That would sort that problem.

Sodomy and other same sex relationships are still frowned upon by the majority and does not the majority rule?

Many people have this aversion to the thought of men sticking their member up another mans excrement hole and who can blame them?

Many also still have an aversion to seeing 2 women kissing and making love and to 2 women marrying.

I'll keep my own counsel on what I think.

[granuaile]

Then why not make a Will? That would sort that problem.

Sodomy and other same sex relationships are still frowned upon by the majority and does not the majority rule?

Many people have this aversion to the thought of men sticking their member up another mans excrement hole and who can blame them?

Many also still have an aversion to seeing 2 women kissing and making love and to 2 women marrying.

I'll keep my own counsel on what I think.

A will only resoves one issue. There are innumerable othe issues and benefits to marriage, As to an aversion to sodomy, that is not the issue but the right to love and have that love recognized.

And an aversion to sodomy here. There is aeck of a lot of it here for it to be desribed as an aversion...

What you fail to realize is that it is not about sex. It is about love..

[cdnvic]

A century ago it would have been against the law for my wife and I to marry because she is Chinese. There were people with what they thought were perfectly rational reasons why people should accept the law and get over it. I'm glad people didn't.

[PeaceBlondie]

Heterosexual anal and oral sodomy was perfectly fine for Jewish men to commit with all their wives and all their sex concubines. And probably with all their female non-Jewish harlots. Majority rule does not determine law. Thai men and women do not kiss in public, let alone do sex in public, even heterosexually.

[jdinasia]

Then why not make a Will? That would sort that problem.

Sodomy and other same sex relationships are still frowned upon by the majority and does not the majority rule?

Many people have this aversion to the thought of men sticking their member up another mans excrement hole and who can blame them?

Many also still have an aversion to seeing 2 women kissing and making love and to 2 women marrying.

I'll keep my own counsel on what I think.

Wills can be contested ... wills cost money ... lesbian porn sells (to straight men) ... the majority of the people do not have the right to control the basic civil rights of minorities. What you do in your bedroom is your business and what other people do in theirs is .. well... theirs.

I understand that some men are so insecure in their own sexuality that they feel the need to try and control other people's sexuality as well but the right to marry is not about sex, it is not about children, it is about equal protection under the law.

As for "the majority of people" being "frowned upon", that really rather depends on where you happen to be. I think you will find that the majority of people get hung up on the word marraige and think of it in religious terms and not in civil terms. Because contrary to your statement most people don't frown on gay relationships at all. Most people don't think about them and the ones that do talk about them tend to be polarized on the subject.

In civil rights issues the majority rule is the very last thing that should be considered ... always.

What should be considered is what is just and fair. Face it I have personally paid more in taxes overseas for something that I will never see a direct benefit from. Why? Because free basic education is a "right" where I come from. I am a property owner and property taxes fund education. I don't have children but I pay for those of you that do. I happily pay for this because it is fair and just. Yet strangely people think that I should have to go through a convoluted legal process to protect my rights to inherit, to visit my partner in a hospital etc etc

Anyways .... if majority rule is the basic litmus test for civil rights you may as well put blacks back in the back of the bus ... or to work on plantations. You may as well tell the Thais that it is absolutely fine that they deny citizenship to minority groups that have been living in Thailand for 100's of years ... etc

Wait better yet ... Why not take away the vote from men and only let women vote? They are, after all, the majority.

[BanTamo]

One such 'poor, undeveloped' country blighted by 'organized religion' and a plethora of buffaloes having passed medical exams is the USA.

[SomTumTiger]

Times change, old opinions and beliefs die away, with the generations that held them. 50 years from now, our children's children will wonder why their Grandparents were so backwards in their thinking, just like we think of many of our Grandparents beliefs. Funny thing about 'conservatives" - they will never win. If history teaches us anything, it is that society will change and evolve. Trying to stop it, or slow it down? Good luck with that.

[cdnvic]

Funny thing about 'conservatives" - they will never win. If history teaches us anything, it is that society will change and evolve. Trying to stop it, or slow it down? Good luck with that.

Being conservative has nothing to do with prejudices. It's just that religious conservatives often hijack the agenda. If you think that being on the left side of the political map makes you more accepting of others, try having two men kiss at a Teamster's union meeting. Many conservatives have nothing against well thought out change, and some so-called liberals harbour strong hatreds for those with opposing views just like their radial right counterparts.

[jdinasia]

Funny thing about 'conservatives" - they will never win. If history teaches us anything, it is that society will change and evolve. Trying to stop it, or slow it down? Good luck with that.

Being conservative has nothing to do with prejudices. It's just that religious conservatives often hijack the agenda. If you think that being on the left side of the political map makes you more accepting of others, try having two men kiss at a Teamster's union meeting. Many conservatives have nothing against well thought out change, and some so-called liberals harbour strong hatreds for those with opposing views just like their radial right counterparts.

Ummm sorry to disagree but that is just facile labeling ....

But since we brought up the word "conservative" --- there is a good book (well honestly it is a bit dry) about Christianity and same sex marraige that strangely has only been challenged by the two most conservative Christian groups that were present at the time. Boswell's Same Sex Unnions in Pre-Modern Europe. If we really want to be "conservative" about it the Greeks, Romans, French etc all had some sort of recognized union for same sex partners.

Personally I am proud of being liberal .... in the real meaning of the word.

[cdnvic]

Actually, in true conservatism, the government keeps it nose out of your personal life to greatest degree possible.

[animatic]

No, it is not.

It is lies like that these that poison the debate and make any rational such a very hard thing to have.

The concept of one woman and one man as some form of God-given-institution carved in rock is nonsense and not even your own collected scriptures nor history supports you. The idea of the union having this specific shape is actually from very recent times.

TAWP, if you want to have babies, if you want to have a family, as such, it naturally takes a man and a woman, and that is how this species has come so far. It's very basic biology, time-tested. It's also what keeps our genders together. Bacteria is asexual, if you get the gist.

Sorry I know families with several children and no men were involved as they came together,

in some cases two widows came together with their children and were stable supporting units for many years,

but social security and annuities that would have devolved if one were a man were ended because both were women.

Basically civil unions are a positive thing that holds some families together. Marriage in a church was a mechanism

to make couples make a larger effort to stay together to foster better child rearing, via social pressure from those

around them, family friends, organized guilt etc. It is MORE necessary when two people CAN inadvertently make babies through sex,

than if they can't. But the main reasoning is to hold a family unit together for better child rearing. Mutual support reinforced.

If a couple has kids, but can no longer make babies, it is just the same as a same sex union with kids...

there is the same need for the unit to stay together, but not because more babies are expected.

And this has all changed because of birth control on the dual gender families.

But the traditional rolls of hunter gather mate and nurturer mates still is valid,

and needed, but the actual genders of those involved is moot for getting the job done.

It just flies in the face of traditional beliefs. And there lies the crux of this discussion.

I see no reason allowing solid bonding between individuals with rituals and legal documentation ,

in any way invalidates nor diminishes the bonding of other couples doing the same thing.

IF the only difference is the genders of those involved.

It is an emotional, legal and social strengthening of a relationships stability,

and in this day and age of temptation and too much information and the fast life, strong unions are very important...

Edited February 16, 2010 by animatic

[Jingthing]

Of course this is simply a civil rights/equal rights issue. In the US, not so long ago interracial marriages were illegal in many states. Now they are legal in all states. The same thing is happening with equal rights for gays. It will happen someday in Thailand too (if there is still a Thailand).

[TAWP]

But it's not their 'right' to demand whatever they think they are entitled to against the morality of religion and public opinion.

Yes, it is.

As it is the right of every being to have equal value and rights as any other. Therefor requesting that this right is adhered to IS indeed an right of any sentient being.

And if morality of religion is a measuring pole then we are free to do whatever we want, however we want, including killing whoever we want. I hope that is not the case.

[davelec]

But it's not their 'right' to demand whatever they think they are entitled to against the morality of religion and public opinion. Even California has changed it's mind on same sex marriage. They are not being discriminated against any more than i am by not having the 'right' to stay in Thailand on my own terms. Gays cannot marry in Thailand, probably never will, get over it.

I always wonder if those who use morality and religion to back up their arguments live clean, moral lives according to the same religious views that they use to judge other people's whom they harbour a prejudice against?

If you wonder that why not go to your local wat and ask them about their religious 'prejudice' and what they think about lesbian 'marriage'. From what I have seen of your erratic and, some might say, power crazy moderating, you appear to be the one with a lot of prejudice against the views of others-post deleted- poster banned I expect!!!

Edited February 16, 2010 by davelec

[ovaltina]

Regarding the man & woman = real marriage because they produce babies, one might wish to give gay & lesbian & transgendered people a Gold Medal for keeping the world population down. The 21C is going to have land,water and food shortages, and any kind of world war 3 is predicted to be over these last 2 soft-commodities rather than the oil / money wars of the 20C.

Given also that certain religions practice male-heir patriarchy, i.e. not stopping procreating until the family has a certain number of sons, and can easily get 15 children in the same man/woman partnership, this intensive breeding is really going to counterweigh the 2.3 kids and the low birth rate of certain well-known nations. In short, standing-room only will be a luxury, a memory in the future. I would say that lesbians and gays and post-op trans should get some sort of noble prize for environmentalism, under the circumstances.

I think that marriage isn't what a lot of the gay community insist on, it is legal recognition in the courts,hospitals and in the inheritance system, and lack of social prejudice.

In Thailand particulary,one of my best Thai friends,from a very traditional-values Thai family, is a lesbian since she was at school, and now an office worker & dare not mention it at work, and she once was stunned to hear that in Europe there are even senior politicians who are openly gay, without being ostracised or deemed subhuman, and that lesbians can kiss openly in the 'upmarket' parts of cities & not just in the slums.

[SeanMoran]

Regarding the man & woman = real marriage because they produce babies, one might wish to give gay & lesbian & transgendered people a Gold Medal for keeping the world population down. The 21C is going to have land,water and food shortages,

What you are suggesting is to ban all marriages then. That is like advocating the slaughter of all pelicans because fish can swim and birds can fly.

If you are driving down the highway and your temperature gauge goes to the red, it's not the right move to get out and change a tyre.

[ovaltina]

What you are suggesting is to ban all marriages then. That is like advocating the slaughter of all pelicans because fish can swim and birds can fly.

If you are driving down the highway and your temperature gauge goes to the red, it's not the right move to get out and change a tyre.

No, I was just responding to your quaint assertion that a good & righteous union is one that spawns billions of rugrats into an overpopulated ecology. I agree that man+woman is highly desirable for lots of reasons, just not the 'they produce kids' one.

Ironically, with your seafoodic metaphors, you stumbled onto the only current solution offered by science to the 20 billion people we will have possibly this century, which is underwater cities. Maybe then lesbians can get married underwater dressed as mermaids.

[jdinasia]

If you wonder that why not go to your local wat and ask them about their religious 'prejudice' and what they think about lesbian 'marriage'.

I snipped out the part that is against the forum rules .....

But Dave ---- besides that you just chose to ignore the post I made refuting your claim that you are not in favor of discrimination ... Can you answer a couple of questions?

1) Are you in Thailand?

2) What do you think they would say at the local temple here in Thailand regarding homosexuality and loving committed relationships?

[SeanMoran]

What you are suggesting is to ban all marriages then. That is like advocating the slaughter of all pelicans because fish can swim and birds can fly.

If you are driving down the highway and your temperature gauge goes to the red, it's not the right move to get out and change a tyre.

No, I was just responding to your quaint assertion that a good & righteous union is one that spawns billions of rugrats into an overpopulated ecology. I agree that man+woman is highly desirable for lots of reasons, just not the 'they produce kids' one.

Ironically, with your seafoodic metaphors, you stumbled onto the only current solution offered by science to the 20 billion people we will have possibly this century, which is underwater cities. Maybe then lesbians can get married underwater dressed as mermaids.

Only a minority of western children (and the trend goes down the line across the world) grew up to get their drivers' licences and first paid jobs with parents (plural) but why not go ahead and tear all the last remaining good things down in this world, until you have found the funding for your deep-down underwater worlds and our skyscrapers become your bottom-scrapers.

These foolish games just add to the problem. Anyone with a cheap soul can sell it at a cheap price.

[FatherF]

I honestly do not believe that anyone wants to "tear all the last remaining good things down in this world,"

It is simply a matter of legally acknowledging their relationship as a legal entity. These people are, as far as i am aware not trying to interfere with any "Normal" relationship, just be allowed to live their lives in a legally recognized way that affords them some fiscal and legitimate recognition!

FF

[SeanMoran]

I honestly do not believe that anyone wants to "tear all the last remaining good things down in this world,"

It is simply a matter of legally acknowledging their relationship as a legal entity. These people are, as far as i am aware not trying to interfere with any "Normal" relationship, just be allowed to live their lives in a legally recognized way that affords them some fiscal and legitimate recognition!

FF

So you are saying that all of the children of this world are worthless? Well done.

---o0o---

The legally recognised way is called 'union' but it doesn't involve children because it physically cannot. Marriage is between two people who can have a family. Basic biology,

Edited February 16, 2010 by SeanMoran

[Jingthing]

Thailand doesn't have legal civil unions. Some countries do as an alternative to marriage. The idea that gays should not be allowed to marry because of the lack of ability to breed is a false argument. Why?

-- heterosexuals are allowed to marry even when sterile and even when there is no desire to reproduce (if fertile)

-- quite commonly really old heteros will marry for companionship, no breeding there

-- another example, a close female relative of mine (past breeding capability) just married to give her spouse HEALTH INSURANCE in the US; if her friend she wanted to help was the same sex, no go

-- lesbians commonly have children biologically (yes they import the sperm, as do many hets)

-- gay men sometimes adopt (so do many hets)

There is nothing sacred about heterosexual marriage. In western countries, most fail. Gay marriages also fail. People have the right to try to find their happiness. It is a civil/legal thing. Religious rites are another matter and up to the religions involved.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

I honestly do not believe that anyone wants to "tear all the last remaining good things down in this world,"

It is simply a matter of legally acknowledging their relationship as a legal entity. These people are, as far as i am aware not trying to interfere with any "Normal" relationship, just be allowed to live their lives in a legally recognized way that affords them some fiscal and legitimate recognition!

FF

So you are saying that all of the children of this world are worthless? Well done.

---o0o---

The legally recognised way is called 'union' but it doesn't involve children because it physically cannot. Marriage is between two people who can have a family. Basic biology,

Wow ... First a straw man argument.... and then

an error of fact argument (or just an outright lie)

The poster in no way said all of the children of this world are worthless.

Marraige isn't about procreation ... and any 2 people can "have a family"

The first one (Straw man) is rather reprehensible .. the second argument is just stupid.