Same Sex Marriage

[tombkk]

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.)

I looked at the invitation, and it doesn't mention cameras! In fact, at the US embassy reception (where they mention this), bringing a BF is a non-issue as there are so many people that nobody would notice. I am talking about a small European country. And you have encouraged me to go ahead and bring my BF, and we will watch out for American ladies. ;-) Thanks.

[tombkk]

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

Everybody: Please don't feed the troll.

[JohnLeech]

[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.

It depends on exactly what the invitation not only specified but meant.

It is very unusual for the word "spouse" to be used on a formal invitation, as this limits guests to being accompanied by their married or civil partners and specifically excludes girl-friends/boy-friends. Most formal invitations nowadays either say "plus guest" or "plus partner".

If "spouse" has been used it could be because they want to limit the number of guests, it could be for security reasons, or it could be because the secretary who sent the invitation is unaware of the proper forms of address (unusual in an embassy, but the most likely).

There should be a contact/confirmation e-mail address or phone number on the invitation, as an embassy will usually require the names of all those attending in advance so they can be checked off by the gate security. If you want to shout "I'm gay" from the rooftops and make a point of it then call them and ask if its OK to bring your boyfriend. If you just want to treat it as normal then simply give them his name (Mr .... ...) and in the unlikely event that it is married partners only they will tell 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.

It depends on exactly what the invitation not only specified but meant.

It is very unusual for the word "spouse" to be used on a formal invitation, as this limits guests to being accompanied by their married or civil partners and specifically excludes girl-friends/boy-friends. Most formal invitations nowadays either say "plus guest" or "plus partner".

If "spouse" has been used it could be because they want to limit the number of guests, it could be for security reasons, or it could be because the secretary who sent the invitation is unaware of the proper forms of address (unusual in an embassy, but the most likely).

There should be a contact/confirmation e-mail address or phone number on the invitation, as an embassy will usually require the names of all those attending in advance so they can be checked off by the gate security. If you want to shout "I'm gay" from the rooftops and make a point of it then call them and ask if its OK to bring your boyfriend. If you just want to treat it as normal then simply give them his name (Mr .... ...) and in the unlikely event that it is married partners only they will tell you.

The invitation gives me three options:

[ ] Attend alone

[ ] Attend with spouse

[ ] Don't attend

And then there are RSVP telephone and fax numbers.

I guess I could call them and say that I plan to attend will bring Mr. ... along with me and would that be OK. Is that what you are suggesting?

[South]

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

Exactly! :jap:

[rickthailand]

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.

guys thanks for your opinions so far. i dont know which embassy it is but my embassy (netherlands) accepts invites to bring a same sex partner our queen has been to those where same sex partners where welcome i guess it dependsw on which country

rick

[tombkk]

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

Exactly! :jap:

Moderators: This forum will die if you allow trolls to have their way. It's really up to you, I'm just saying. If you think ThaiVisa without a gay forum is desirable, please let these people have their way.

If you decide in favour of them, good night. They will have reached their goal.

[britmaveric]

^Tom I think you would agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I don't think those opposing gay marriage are opposed to gays in general, just the marriage aspect.

[endure]

The gay forum is supposed to be a place where gays can congregate without having to defend or justify themselves in the same way the ladies forum is.

[britmaveric]

^gays do not have to justify who they are, nor should anyone for that matter. Acceptance is universal.

[tombkk]

^Tom I think you would agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I don't think those opposing gay marriage are opposed to gays in general, just the marriage aspect.

"I am not opposed to red-haired people, I just think they shouldn't be allowed to marry."

The only possible logical argument against gay marriage is the procreation factor. However, this would mean that straight couples would have to prove that they are physically able to procreate before they are allowed to marry, and that couples that don't have children must be forced to divorce.

Everything else is discimination. I fail to see why anti-gay opinions should be tolerated on a gay forum.

[tombkk]

^gays do not have to justify who they are, nor should anyone for that matter. Acceptance is universal.

While I agree with you, this disucssion is about a legal form of being a couple. It has issues with regards to income tax etc, and is a possible choice that is open to straight couples but not to same-sex couples. I have yet to hear a valid argument why it shouldn't be open for same-sex couples.

That's what this thread is about. If there are arguments for or against, I'll be happy to discuss.

[britmaveric]

^civil unions would be the answer, not the same as marriage, but hold same benefits or detriments of marriage.

[Mario2008]

Civil partnerships are now becoming more widely accepted as a legal position, and quite rightly in my view. Marriage is just a religious term, and like religion itself, it is outdated, old fashioned and rapidly losing credibility in an increasingly secular and more sensible world.

A marriage is not a religious thing, it is a judicial "institution", which existed long before the catholic church.

[rodentwarrior]

Civil partnerships are now becoming more widely accepted as a legal position, and quite rightly in my view. Marriage is just a religious term, and like religion itself, it is outdated, old fashioned and rapidly losing credibility in an increasingly secular and more sensible world.

A marriage is not a religious thing, it is a judicial "institution", which existed long before the catholic church.

I see, so please remind me of a marriage ceremony that isn't religious in any aspect?

[Mario2008]

I see, so please remind me of a marriage ceremony that isn't religious in any aspect?

In many countries, there is a clear distinction between a marriage (which requires entry into a marriage register at a city hall for instance) and a church wedding. A church wedding would not be a legal marriage, just as it is in Thailand where only registering the marriage at the amphur is considered a marriage and no ceremony takes place.

[rodentwarrior]

I see, so please remind me of a marriage ceremony that isn't religious in any aspect?

In many countries, there is a clear distinction between a marriage (which requires entry into a marriage register at a city hall for instance) and a church wedding. A church wedding would not be a legal marriage, just as it is in Thailand where only registering the marriage at the amphur is considered a marriage and no ceremony takes place.

"A church wedding would not be a legal marriage"

So, all the church marriages I have attended in the UK are not legal because they weren't conducted at the "city hall".

Jesus wept.

[South]

Well, I thought I'd said my piece on this subject. I answered the initial question in the OP in the way I feel, said nothing 'anti-gay' whatsoever and then I get this message along with all the snide comments from one poster:

You are a wanke_r. And like most cowards you hide behind your monitor and talk <deleted>!

Why don't you try to be a man instead of the insect you are.

Cowards like you make me sick to my heart.

Come and meet me in Soi 4 and then we can decide who's opinion matters most. Coward.

So, to the sender .... how do you come to that conclusion then? Cowardice? Talking sh_ite?

Throughout this thread I have just stated my own personal thoughts, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I presume that the majority of active posters here are gay, no problems there at all. Where I start to have a problem is that when I start to receive the above from a certain poster. Seems to me that if he can't have things his own way, everybody/thing else is in the wrong. I've said my piece and unless there are any more personal attacks which I will retaliate against, I'm saying no more on this subject because to be honest, it is starting to get childish.

...... Britmaverick, thank you for some sensible replies.

[Mario2008]

I see, so please remind me of a marriage ceremony that isn't religious in any aspect?

In many countries, there is a clear distinction between a marriage (which requires entry into a marriage register at a city hall for instance) and a church wedding. A church wedding would not be a legal marriage, just as it is in Thailand where only registering the marriage at the amphur is considered a marriage and no ceremony takes place.

"A church wedding would not be a legal marriage"

So, all the church marriages I have attended in the UK are not legal because they weren't conducted at the "city hall".

Jesus wept.

That depends on the country. In some countries you can only get legally married in a church, others leave you the choice between the church or the city hall to get legally married. In others there is a clear distinction between a civil marriage, which is legal, and a church ceremony in which you marry before god but not before the law.

[Rumpole]

I see, so please remind me of a marriage ceremony that isn't religious in any aspect?

In many countries, there is a clear distinction between a marriage (which requires entry into a marriage register at a city hall for instance) and a church wedding. A church wedding would not be a legal marriage, just as it is in Thailand where only registering the marriage at the amphur is considered a marriage and no ceremony takes place.

"A church wedding would not be a legal marriage"

So, all the church marriages I have attended in the UK are not legal because they weren't conducted at the "city hall".

Jesus wept.

That depends on the country. In some countries you can only get legally married in a church, others leave you the choice between the church or the city hall to get legally married. In others there is a clear distinction between a civil marriage, which is legal, and a church ceremony in which you marry before god but not before the law.

It used to be the case in England that the only religious marriage ceremony recognized in law was one conducted in an Anglican church according to the rites of the Church of England. Ceremonies conducted by all other religions and Christian denominations (including Catholics) were not legal unless the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages was also present at the service (he or she used to sit silently at the back).

Long since abolished though, along with the stipulation that weddings could only be conducted in a place specifically approved for that purpose; i.e. a place of religious worship or registry office.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Rumpole

[JohnLeech]

The invitation gives me three options:

[ ] Attend alone

[ ] Attend with spouse

[ ] Don't attend

And then there are RSVP telephone and fax numbers.

I guess I could call them and say that I plan to attend will bring Mr. ... along with me and would that be OK. Is that what you are suggesting?

That's the "shout I'm gay from the rooftop" option!

The other option is that when you call them ask if "spouse" only means husband/wife, or if you are allowed to bring a friend; if its only husbands/wives then it doesn't really matter whether your friend is male or female, as he isn't your spouse as you are not married or civil partners.

[JohnLeech]

It used to be the case in England that the only religious marriage ceremony recognized in law was one conducted in an Anglican church according to the rites of the Church of England. Ceremonies conducted by all other religions and Christian denominations (including Catholics) were not legal unless the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages was also present at the service (he or she used to sit silently at the back).

Long since abolished though, along with the stipulation that weddings could only be conducted in a place specifically approved for that purpose; i.e. a place of religious worship or registry office.

Not quite correct, Rumpole, if we're splitting legal hairs!

In England and Wales the Marriage Act of 1753 only allowed marriages in an Anglican Church, finally ending unofficial or "Fleet" marriages (those without published banns and a licence) as the Marriage Duty Act of 1696 had left Fleet as a loophole for "quickie" marriages, but Quakers and Jews were exempt and allowed to marry under their own customs.

Those wanting a "quickie" Las Vegas style marriage could still do so under Scottish law (hence "Gretna Green" marriages) or in the Channel Islands until 1856 and civil (non-religious) marriages became recognised under the Marriage Act of 1836. Those getting married in a "Place of Worship" other than an Anglican Church legally still have to register a civil marriage (edit: although this can be registered at the same time, as described below).

Edit: just noticed another point - the location in England does still have to be "approved", as a licence is required unless any marriage is held in a recognised registry office or place of worship.

Edited September 28, 2010 by JohnLeech

[JohnLeech]

Civil partnerships are now becoming more widely accepted as a legal position, and quite rightly in my view. Marriage is just a religious term, and like religion itself, it is outdated, old fashioned and rapidly losing credibility in an increasingly secular and more sensible world.

A marriage is not a religious thing, it is a judicial "institution", which existed long before the catholic church.

I see, so please remind me of a marriage ceremony that isn't religious in any aspect?

Those conducted under Hammurabi's Code in Mesopatamia, in ancient Greece and ancient Rome (unti the Chrstian era), those in nearly all European countries until the Reformation and Calvin's Marriage Ordinance of Geneva in 1546, those in China which were pre-dominantly secular, etc, etc.

It would actually be easier to list those which do now have a religious aspect!

In some countries, including the US, Canada, UK, Ireland and some Europen countries the religious and civil ceremonies are technically held "in tandem" as the minister officiating is licenced and recognised as "an agent of the state" and the civil element is covered when the marriage register is signed, which is not part of the religious service - technically when someone "pronounces you man and wife" it has no legal standing until the register is signed and witnessed.

[tombkk]

The invitation gives me three options:

[ ] Attend alone

[ ] Attend with spouse

[ ] Don't attend

And then there are RSVP telephone and fax numbers.

I guess I could call them and say that I plan to attend will bring Mr. ... along with me and would that be OK. Is that what you are suggesting?

That's the "shout I'm gay from the rooftop" option!

The other option is that when you call them ask if "spouse" only means husband/wife, or if you are allowed to bring a friend; if its only husbands/wives then it doesn't really matter whether your friend is male or female, as he isn't your spouse as you are not married or civil partners.

Well, you do have a point, we are not legally married so he is not my spouse.

Just to take this a step up: What happened to "common-law wife/husband"? Shouldn't this apply to same-sex couples as well? We have been cohabitating for over 7 years...

[tombkk]

^civil unions would be the answer, not the same as marriage, but hold same benefits or detriments of marriage.

As I said earlier, I don't care about the vocabulary. Unlike Mario2008, I do think that the word "marriage" carries a religious ballast, and I'd be happy to call it a "civil union", "civil partnership", whatever. A rose is still a rose whatever you call it. The benefits (and detriments) is what I am talking about, not the semantics.

I am curious as to what - in your opinion - is the difference between a civil union and a marriage, kindly elaborate.

[JohnLeech]

Well, you do have a point, we are not legally married so he is not my spouse.

Just to take this a step up: What happened to "common-law wife/husband"? Shouldn't this apply to same-sex couples as well? We have been cohabitating for over 7 years...

"common-law wife/husband" is a legal term used to confer specific rights for those who meet specific criteria and is irrelevant here.

Why not do what any normal person would do and telephone them and ask if you can bring a friend or not? If someone were straight with a long-term girlfriend that is probably what they would do, so why should you feel the need to do anything differently or to be treated any differently?

Very often we, as gays, can be our own worst enemies and look for obstacles where none exist or take offence where none is meant.

[tombkk]

Well, you do have a point, we are not legally married so he is not my spouse.

Just to take this a step up: What happened to "common-law wife/husband"? Shouldn't this apply to same-sex couples as well? We have been cohabitating for over 7 years...

"common-law wife/husband" is a legal term used to confer specific rights for those who meet specific criteria and is irrelevant here.

Why not do what any normal person would do and telephone them and ask if you can bring a friend or not? If someone were straight with a long-term girlfriend that is probably what they would do, so why should you feel the need to do anything differently or to be treated any differently?

Very often we, as gays, can be our own worst enemies and look for obstacles where none exist or take offence where none is meant.

Actually, I have already called ahead, and I can bring "a friend".

The issue about "common-law" was another one, for which I should actually have opened another thread. The whole idea is not accepted in many countries, even for straight couples. They need to actively go to the registrar and get married. Cohabitation counts as being married only in a few countries. In fact, I am in favour of actively having to register a marriage (civil union, civil partnership, whatever) rather than being defaulted into being married through cohabitation. But that is certainly another discussion, to be covered by another thread.

[rickthailand]

all i was curious about was what your guys opinion was about if same sex marriage would ever be legal in thailand not wether it

is right or wrong.

thanx

[Mario2008]

all i was curious about was what your guys opinion was about if same sex marriage would ever be legal in thailand not wether it

is right or wrong.

thanx

That discussion is exactly why it is not legal in many countries, and also while civil partnerships exist next to marriages. But you will see the tide turning, currently it are just a few countries that allow same sex marriage. But that list will grow and grow and in due time also Thailand will have it.

Don't forget that in Thailand the non-legal traditional wedding ceremony between people of the same sex is no problem at all.

[mojo80]

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

Everybody: Please don't feed the troll.

Awesome reply, dont like someones opinion scream troll like a little girl! Yawn.

Marriage should be for man and women only, now im not saying if to people of the same sex want to commit to each other for love, benefits thats fine, it just shouldnt be called marriage....i think the term civil union or something along those lines, in fact call it what the hel_l you want but NOT MARRIAGE.

Nuff Said.!