Same Sex Marriage

[rickthailand]

i am just curious do you guys think that same sex marriage will ever be legal in thailand?

rick

[tombkk]

Nothing is impossible.

[isanbirder]

Eventually it will be legal everywhere (civil unions at least)... but how long, oh how long? In Thailand it will probably happen one day almost by accident.

[JohnLeech]

Evenually yes, at least in the form of a civil partnership. Thailand was very quick, however, to refuse permission for the British Embassy in Bangkok to register UK Civil Partnerships.

[tombkk]

Evenually yes, at least in the form of a civil partnership. Thailand was very quick, however, to refuse permission for the British Embassy in Bangkok to register UK Civil Partnerships.

When was that refusal (year, and preferrably government coalition) and what was the name of the minister who refused the permission?

[JohnLeech]

As a "standing application" approval has been rejected by each Thai government since the Act was passed in the UK (2004/5) and permission first applied for.

[Guest]

Not sure they actually refused it, but have never agreed to allow it.

[JohnLeech]

You're correct, pauln.

Although its more accetable diplomatically to "not agree to allow" an application than to "refuse" or "reject" it the result is the same (although some, such as the Hong Kong SAR, are clearly not so worried about such niceties).

Technically I should have said that the Thai government was very quick not to agree to allow the British Embassy in Bangkok to register UK Civil Partnerships and that every government since has also not agreed to allow them to do so.

I am sure that will make all the difference to those looking for some sign of official accepance here!

[South]

i am just curious do you guys think that same sex marriage will ever be legal in thailand?

rick

Hope not.

[tombkk]

i am just curious do you guys think that same sex marriage will ever be legal in thailand?

rick

Hope not.

Interesting. Why not?

[elshaheen]

The Thai Government does not recognize "Same-sex marriages" like most modern countries to say. Though Thailand is a practicing Buddhist country and there is nothing from what I've heard or read says anything again same-sex unions or marriage. Most of the couples I know of will get married or be confirmed as a partnership like it a Buddhist temple in places outside of Bangkok, like Pattaya or Ubon area. Sometimes the western guy will take their partner to their own country and get married, weather Thailand recognizes other countries laws regarding marriage, and I am not 100% sure. I think the U.N. recognizes same-sex marriages, but Thailand doesn’t recognize the U.N. in anyway shape of form.

[South]

i am just curious do you guys think that same sex marriage will ever be legal in thailand?

rick

Hope not.

Interesting. Why not?

Just call me old fashioned.

[tombkk]

The Thai Government does not recognize "Same-sex marriages" like most modern countries to say. Though Thailand is a practicing Buddhist country and there is nothing from what I've heard or read says anything again same-sex unions or marriage. Most of the couples I know of will get married or be confirmed as a partnership like it a Buddhist temple in places outside of Bangkok, like Pattaya or Ubon area. Sometimes the western guy will take their partner to their own country and get married, weather Thailand recognizes other countries laws regarding marriage, and I am not 100% sure. I think the U.N. recognizes same-sex marriages, but Thailand doesn't recognize the U.N. in anyway shape of form.

The Thai government does not recognize same-sex marriage, this is why the OP asked the question. Good morning to you.

Thai is a secular country, and the state laws do not follow any religion. Yes, you can have a wedding ceremony conducted by Buddhist monks, and consider yourself married for all intents and purposes - except legal ones. Many same-sex weddings have been conducted by Thai Buddhist monks over the years, and there is no point in mentioing only Pattaya or Ubon. You could have mentioned Bangkok and many other provinces.

If you are legally married to a same-sex partner in another country, Thai law does not recognize it - for example for income tax, you are still single.

Thailand is a member of the UN and respects their regulations in every shape and form. Kindly point me to a UN regulation saying that same-sex marriage must be recognized by all member countries.

[tombkk]

i am just curious do you guys think that same sex marriage will ever be legal in thailand?

rick

Hope not.

Interesting. Why not?

Just call me old fashioned.

Is it old-fashioned to refuse to open ones brains for a moment before making such remarks? I am interested in your elaborated opinion.

[South]

Bigoted and not progressive?? :D

We are all bigoted in some respect for various reasons and on various subjects, are we not? Non progressive? maybe.

To elaborate, what people do with their own lives is totally up to them and with that I have no qualms whatsoever. It is just that to me, the 'institution of marriage' is a bonding of people from opposite sexes, nothing more, nothing less. Husband/wife - Father/mother etc.

Yes, things change but as same sex marriage is a subject I know pretty much nothing about, I'll just remain old fashioned and say no more. I think I've made my point.

Have a nice day.

[JohnLeech]

It is just that to me, the 'institution of marriage' is a bonding of people from opposite sexes, nothing more, nothing less. Husband/wife - Father/mother etc.

Certainly a few gays feel the same way as you, South, preferring the term "Civil Partnership", or something similar, to "marriage" - this was discussed on this thread quite recently if you are interested.

[britmaveric]

Dunno most gays I know are quite happy the way things are especially when they benefit from no divorce or legal wranglings when things go pear shape. I think depends on what you define marriage as - man/woman who can pro-create. Can't do that with man/man or woman/woman combos.

[tombkk]

Dunno most gays I know are quite happy the way things are especially when they benefit from no divorce or legal wranglings when things go pear shape. I think depends on what you define marriage as - man/woman who can pro-create. Can't do that with man/man or woman/woman combos.

The right to marry doesn't mean that you have to marry. It is a choice and if you are afraid of diveroces, you wouldn't exercise that right. That has nothing to do with same- or opposite-sex.

And with the ability to recreate, you are saying that married a man and woman have to recreate otherwise they are abusing the system. Couples who choose to not have children must therefore be divorced by law, probably put in jail.

About the word: I wouldn't insist on the word "marriage" as it is loaded with much Christian stuff. However, a legal form, call it civil partnership if you will, is needed. Income tax, visiting rights in hospital, or situations after teh demise of one partner are issues where same-sex couples shouldn't be treated differently from opposite-sex couple, IMHO.

[South]

Bigoted and not progressive?? :D

We are all bigoted in some respect for various reasons and on various subjects, are we not? Non progressive? maybe.

To elaborate, what people do with their own lives is totally up to them and with that I have no qualms whatsoever. It is just that to me, the 'institution of marriage' is a bonding of people from opposite sexes, nothing more, nothing less. Husband/wife - Father/mother etc.

Yes, things change but as same sex marriage is a subject I know pretty much nothing about, I'll just remain old fashioned and say no more. I think I've made my point.

Have a nice day.

Oh dear, strange how questions relating to same sex relationship issues always manages to bring out these insufferable backward looking ignoramuses.

It's exactly this kind of attitude that keeps 'equality' a dream for so many people.

Just as well that 'South' wasn't a legislator at the time that slavery was abolished, or it may not have happened, because that was the kind of 'way forward' that was certainly considered radical and modern at the time.

Typically, bigots like 'South' always crumble under scrutiny, and it becomes clear very quickly, to educated and liberal minded thinkers, that this kind of institutional programming comes from a very limited upbringing with extremely narrow social and educational parameters.

Touched a nerve have I rodentwarrior??

You know absolutely nothing at all about me, my upbringing or anything else for that matter yet you feel fit to start throwing abuse. Now that is not only sad but excessively ignorant too.

I've stated my point, that is what a forum is for, is it not? And, contrary to what you may think, we are all allowed an opinion. If it doesn't follow yours, does that make it wrong?

Scrutinize away!

Anyway, back to the topic - the question was, 'Do you think that same sex marriage will ever be legal in Thailand?'

I said, 'I hope not for the reason given.' Just my personal opinion. So 'rodentwarrior, if you don't like it/agree with it, tough.

[rodentwarrior]

*sigh*

Well the readers will make their own mind up about your 'contribution' and clear bias against gay equality. Luckily people with your opinions are rapidly coming to the conclusion that gay people are equal to heterosexuals in ALL respects.

You didn't make a single valid point - you just gave your bigoted opinion.

The answer to the question is YES, in my view civil partnerships will inevitably be recognised in Thailand, it will take time of course, because it's pretty radical - and of course there will be people like 'South' who feel threatened by 'change' to their old fashioned, out of date, perspective.

[South]

*sigh*

Well the readers will make their own mind up about your 'contribution' and clear bias against gay equality. Luckily people with your opinions are rapidly coming to the conclusion that gay people are equal to heterosexuals in ALL respects.

You didn't make a single valid point - you just gave your bigoted opinion.

The answer to the question is YES, in my view civil partnerships will inevitably be recognised in Thailand, it will take time of course, because it's pretty radical - and of course there will be people like 'South' who feel threatened by 'change' to their old fashioned, out of date, perspective.

Hehe, I'm starting to enjoy this. Now, if you care to take time and read this thread, you will notice the OP stated 'MARRIAGES', not civil partnerships which you have slyly introduced - a totally different thing altogether. Now go and have your eggnog before it gets cold.

[JohnLeech]

(edited)

The right to marry doesn't mean that you have to marry. It is a choice ...........

And with the ability to recreate, you are saying that married a man and woman have to recreate otherwise they are abusing the system. Couples who choose to not have children must therefore be divorced by law, probably put in jail.

About the word: I wouldn't insist on the word "marriage" as it is loaded with much Christian stuff. However, a legal form, call it civil partnership if you will, is needed. ..............

Tom, I agree with you 100% on this one althogh its not only Christian baggage.

I have a UK Civil Partnership with my Thai male partner, which effectvely gives me exactly the same rights and privileges as a marriage would with a female partner but with none of the associated "baggage" that comes with the word; he is even entitled to a British Army pension on my demise, even though we registered our partnership long after I left the Army. The only difference between Civil Partnerships and marriages in the UK is that peerages do not apply - you could have Lord and Lady Leech , but not Lord and Lord Leech.

I have never come acoss anyone who has said that in order to be married you have to procreate or even that you have to have the ability to procreate (otherwise it would rule out those who were infertile.), but I have come across those who have accused others of saying this (JT was the latest, inevitably). What a lot of gay as well as straight people are actually saying is that marriage is generally accepted, and has been for centuries, as being an arrangement exclusively for a man and a woman, a husband and wife - not for any other combination (although some religions admittedly allow for a man and a number of women).

The argument that this is denying gay men (or women) equal rights to their straight counterparts lacks any logic, as you cannot legislate away biological differences - you cannot give a man permission to breast-feed, for example, as he can't do it (although some enjoy trying). Equal rights means just that: equal, not identical.

Some European countries simply took the easy way out and limited their Civil Partnership laws to saying that wherever the word "marriage" appeared in any law it also

included Civil Partnerships, and wherever the word "spouse" apeared it also included Civil Partners. Nothing could be simpler, and any objections would be minimised.

[JohnLeech]

Hehe, I'm starting to enjoy this. Now, if you care to take time and read this thread, you will notice the OP stated 'MARRIAGES', not civil partnerships which you have slyly introduced - a totally different thing altogether. Now go and have your eggnog before it gets cold.

"a totally different thing"?

Hardly. The only difference I can see is that the former is generally between two people of the opposite sex while the latter is generally between two people of the same sex. Apart from that they seem to confer similar rights and responsibilities and to be pretty similar overall to me.

Maybe you know something I don't ...........??

[South]

Hehe, I'm starting to enjoy this. Now, if you care to take time and read this thread, you will notice the OP stated 'MARRIAGES', not civil partnerships which you have slyly introduced - a totally different thing altogether. Now go and have your eggnog before it gets cold.

"a totally different thing"?

Hardly. The only difference I can see is that the former is generally between two people of the opposite sex while the latter is generally between two people of the same sex. Apart from that they seem to confer similar rights and responsibilities and to be pretty similar overall to me.

Maybe you know something I don't ...........??

BoldExactly what I have been saying! The OP asked about 'marriages', nothing else, no mention at all of civil partenerships/unions or whatever.

Had he posed the question,"I am just curious do you guys think that same sex civil partnerships will ever be legal in Thailand?" I wouldn't even have replied. As I've said before, a marriage to me is the bonding of a male and a female and in my humble opinion always will be.

Have a nice day.

[tombkk]

(edited)

The right to marry doesn't mean that you have to marry. It is a choice ...........

And with the ability to recreate, you are saying that married a man and woman have to recreate otherwise they are abusing the system. Couples who choose to not have children must therefore be divorced by law, probably put in jail.

About the word: I wouldn't insist on the word "marriage" as it is loaded with much Christian stuff. However, a legal form, call it civil partnership if you will, is needed. ..............

Tom, I agree with you 100% on this one althogh its not only Christian baggage.

I have a UK Civil Partnership with my Thai male partner, which effectvely gives me exactly the same rights and privileges as a marriage would with a female partner but with none of the associated "baggage" that comes with the word; he is even entitled to a British Army pension on my demise, even though we registered our partnership long after I left the Army. The only difference between Civil Partnerships and marriages in the UK is that peerages do not apply - you could have Lord and Lady Leech , but not Lord and Lord Leech.

I have never come acoss anyone who has said that in order to be married you have to procreate or even that you have to have the ability to procreate (otherwise it would rule out those who were infertile.), but I have come across those who have accused others of saying this (JT was the latest, inevitably). What a lot of gay as well as straight people are actually saying is that marriage is generally accepted, and has been for centuries, as being an arrangement exclusively for a man and a woman, a husband and wife - not for any other combination (although some religions admittedly allow for a man and a number of women).

The argument that this is denying gay men (or women) equal rights to their straight counterparts lacks any logic, as you cannot legislate away biological differences - you cannot give a man permission to breast-feed, for example, as he can't do it (although some enjoy trying). Equal rights means just that: equal, not identical.

Some European countries simply took the easy way out and limited their Civil Partnership laws to saying that wherever the word "marriage" appeared in any law it also

included Civil Partnerships, and wherever the word "spouse" apeared it also included Civil Partners. Nothing could be simpler, and any objections would be minimised.

Well said.

I have been invited to an embassy reception, with spouse. Now, what do you think will happen if I bring my boyfriend? I cannot judge. Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

[rodentwarrior]

John,

'South' has already claimed his total ignorance of the subject matter thus:

"Yes, things change but as same sex marriage is a subject I know pretty much nothing about, I'll just remain old fashioned and say no more."

However, unlike his statement that he will "say no more." he carries on like a typical bar-room barrister, who has little or (in this case) no knowledge of the subject matter, but insists on making uninformed statements thereby proving to all concerned of his total ignorance, and biased view against equality for gay people.

[rodentwarrior]

I have been invited to an embassy reception, with spouse. Now, what do you think will happen if I bring my boyfriend? I cannot judge. Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

I suggest you speak with the person who invited you, and see what their reaction is. The fact that your spouse is the same sex as you, shouldn't be problematic in my view, however I don't know your position or whether bringing your boyfriend would create problems.

It's not an easy task until the re-education of backward looking people is further forward.

Good luck to you Tom. Let us know what you decide to do please.

[geriatrickid]

Well said.

I have been invited to an embassy reception, with spouse. Now, what do you think will happen if I bring my boyfriend? I cannot judge. Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

If you look at the invitation it will most likely include a section that states something like this; To speed the line at the security gate, please attempt to arrive early and refrain from bringing cameras. Dress code: smart business attire.

Unless it is one of the Middle Eastern countries or Iran hosting, I don't think there will be a comment as to the sex of your companion/guest/spouse. I think that as long as the invited parties are properly attired and behaved, no one is going to care about the gender of the guests. IMO, most people would be thrilled to be at an event where there was some eye candy and/or interesting guests instead of the usual floppy fuglies.Anyone that would make a fuss, has bigger personal issues to deal with. In the limited number of functions I have attended, the gays if there were any, were not noticeable and were just as dull and boring as everyone else.

Have a good time and remember not to eat any foods that leak. Nothing embarrasses the spouse/partner, like the other 1/2 having a red sauce or mustard stain on the shirt. (Trust me on this, as you do not want to be publicly humiliated when some American lady pulls out her Tide spot cleaning stick and says, I'll fix that and everyone laughs at you.)

[tombkk]

I have been invited to an embassy reception, with spouse. Now, what do you think will happen if I bring my boyfriend? I cannot judge. Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

I suggest you speak with the person who invited you, and see what their reaction is. The fact that your spouse is the same sex as you, shouldn't be problematic in my view, however I don't know your position or whether bringing your boyfriend would create problems.

It's not an easy task until the re-education of backward looking people is further forward.

Good luck to you Tom. Let us know what you decide to do please.

The person who invited me (according to the invitation) is the ambassador. Well, his secretary will have sent it. I do not do business with the embassy, but some of my customers will likely be there.

While I am usually mistaken for being straight, my boyfriend is only mistaken for straight on first sight. Also, we are very close, and I was told that the way we interact with each other gives us away. However, he is well-educated and sophisticated and walks with confidence in this kind of environment.

I decided to ask my boyfriend whether he is free on that evening.

[mojo80]

God i hope not, its for unity between man and women, anything else is wrong