Gay Activists Call For Same-Sex Marriage Law In Thailand

[pacovl46]

Gay couples should have exactly same the same rights as straight couples. Why does Thailand deny gay couples the chance of being equally as unhappy as married straight couples?

Edited May 31, 2011 by pacovl46

[sausageandmash]

They're accepted, but ridiculed, which is a great compromise.

Gay couples should have exactly same the same rights as straight couples. Why does Thailand deny gay couples the chance of being equally as unhappy as married straight couples?

[SAffer]

Natee claimed 10 per cent or around four million voters were "third sex".

Give me a break...a third sex? People can come up with the wildest things to justify their own fantasy. There is no third sex.

OK, here's my question:

I see many, many, many... '3rd sex' people everyday in Bangkok (especially at my Uni).

So, the 'Toms' say they are men... kap.

And the 'Katois' say they are women... kaa

Then why do never, ever ... ever see Tom and Katoi couples?

They would be perfect for one another, and there would be no legal restriction on their marriage.

Please someone explain this to me??

[trisailer]

They should be able to marry. Equal rights are equal rights.

Just because it hasn't been allowed for a couple of thousand years doesn't make it right. Apparently, before the major religions took control it was accepted practice for millions of years.

Edited May 31, 2011 by trisailer

[Jirapa]

Because God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!

Gay couples should have exactly same the same rights as straight couples. Why does Thailand deny gay couples the chance of being equally as unhappy as married straight couples?

Adam and Eve? So you believe human kind suddenly popped up a few thousand years ago in gods image under an apple tree? I pity you!

[jdinasia]

OK, here's my question:

I see many, many, many... '3rd sex' people everyday in Bangkok (especially at my Uni).

So, the 'Toms' say they are men... kap.

And the 'Katois' say they are women... kaa

Then why do never, ever ... ever see Tom and Katoi couples?

They would be perfect for one another, and there would be no legal restriction on their marriage.

Please someone explain this to me??

There is no legal impediment between any eligible man and any eligible woman marrying .... if you need "human attraction" explained to you, I am sorry ... can't help you there.

[Jirapa]

Natee claimed 10 per cent or around four million voters were "third sex".

Give me a break...a third sex? People can come up with the wildest things to justify their own fantasy. There is no third sex.

OK, here's my question:

I see many, many, many... '3rd sex' people everyday in Bangkok (especially at my Uni).

So, the 'Toms' say they are men... kap.

And the 'Katois' say they are women... kaa

Then why do never, ever ... ever see Tom and Katoi couples?

They would be perfect for one another, and there would be no legal restriction on their marriage.

Please someone explain this to me??

That's easy to explain...you're ignorant!

[SAffer]

They should be able to marry. Equal rights are equal rights.

Just because it hasn't been allowed for a couple of thousand years doesn't make it right. Apparently, before the major religions took control it was accepted practice for millions of years.

I think you are talking absolute rubbish now.

First you give your opinion, which is fine... but what cr@p is the "Apparently...."??

[SAffer]

Natee claimed 10 per cent or around four million voters were "third sex".

Give me a break...a third sex? People can come up with the wildest things to justify their own fantasy. There is no third sex.

OK, here's my question:

I see many, many, many... '3rd sex' people everyday in Bangkok (especially at my Uni).

So, the 'Toms' say they are men... kap.

And the 'Katois' say they are women... kaa

Then why do never, ever ... ever see Tom and Katoi couples?

They would be perfect for one another, and there would be no legal restriction on their marriage.

Please someone explain this to me??

That's easy to explain...you're ignorant!

So, Toms and Ladyboys can't match because I am ignorant?

Wow, that's enlightening!

[pkrv]

Hmm Civil Partnership in The UK or is it infact poof apartheid - I deeply suspect that if heterosexuals cannot enter into civil partnership - it is actually poof apartheid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

William and Kate can marry, gays can't

Royal couple urged to support the right of gay couples to get married

London - 18 April 2011

"We wish William and Kate every happiness. May they have a joyful marriage and a wonderful married life together.

"The royal couple are lucky. They have the option to get married. Gay couples don't have this option. They are barred by law from marriage," said Peter Tatchell, Director of the equality and human rights organisation, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

"We urge Kate and William to support marriage equality: the right of same-sex couples to get married. Their support would mean a lot. They take for granted the right to marry. Marriage is something that many lesbian and gay couples want but cannot have.

"Gay marriage is a simple issue of respect, equality and fairness. In a democracy, we should all be equal under the law. This means an equal right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

"Gay couples are allowed civil partnerships. But this is not equality. They cannot get married in a register office like their heterosexual family and friends. This is discrimination and discrimination is wrong.

"There would be uproar if the government banned Jewish people from marriage and offered them civil partnerships instead. We would call it an anti-Semitic law; something we would expect in Nazi Germany not democratic Britain. Well, Jews are not banned from marriage but gay people are.

"The ban on gay civil marriages is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the British people, according to an opinion poll by Populous in June 2009. The poll found that 61% of the public believe that: "Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships." Only 33% disagreed.

http://www.populuslimited.com/the-times-the-times-gay-britain-poll-100609.html

"A new poll taken today would almost certainly register even more public support for marriage equality.

"On 2 February this year, eight couples - four gay and four heterosexual - filed a joint legal application to the European Court of Human Rights, to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships. Their applications are sponsored by the Equal Love campaign - www.equallove.org.uk - which seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law. It is supported by the Peter Tatchell Foundation and the LGBTI campaign group OutRage!," said Mr Tatchell

Further information: Peter Tatchell

0207 403 1790

[email protected]

ENDS

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS AUTOMATED EMAIL.

If you would like to contact the Peter Tatchell Foundation, please email peter@petertatchellfoundation.

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org

Follow the PTF on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/PT_Foundation

Join the PTF on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35320687969

PETER TATCHELL FOUNDATION (PTF)

PTHRF Ltd, limited company number 6375450

Donations are requested to help fund the Peter Tatchell Foundation and its promotion of human rights.

The PTF depends entirely on donations from supporters and well-wishers to finance its work. Please donate generously to the PTF.

Click here to find out how to make a donation:

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/donate.html

Please make cheques payable to: "Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund".

Send to: PTF, Studio 5, Disney Place House, 14 Marshalsea Rd, London, SE1 1HL

For information about the PTF: www.petertatchellfoundation.org

For information about Peter Tatchell's many other present and past campaigns: www.petertatchell.net

Edited May 31, 2011 by pkrv

[SAffer]

OK, here's my question:

I see many, many, many... '3rd sex' people everyday in Bangkok (especially at my Uni).

So, the 'Toms' say they are men... kap.

And the 'Katois' say they are women... kaa

Then why do never, ever ... ever see Tom and Katoi couples?

They would be perfect for one another, and there would be no legal restriction on their marriage.

Please someone explain this to me??

There is no legal impediment between any eligible man and any eligible woman marrying .... if you need "human attraction" explained to you, I am sorry ... can't help you there.

So it just so happens that no Tom and no Ladyboy ever find each other attractive?

It seems odd to me, I really mean that.

I mean... have you ever, ever seen such a couple?

It would be nice to have an insightful answer, without being attacked personally for making this observation. Geez

[jdinasia]

There is no legal impediment between any eligible man and any eligible woman marrying .... if you need "human attraction" explained to you, I am sorry ... can't help you there.

So it just so happens that no Tom and no Ladyboy ever find each other attractive?

It seems odd to me, I really mean that.

I mean... have you ever, ever seen such a couple?

It would be nice to have an insightful answer, without being attacked personally for making this observation. Geez

Let me repeat myself .....

There is no legal impediment between any eligible man and any eligible woman marrying .... if you need "human attraction" explained to you, I am sorry ... can't help you there.

[SAffer]

There is no legal impediment between any eligible man and any eligible woman marrying .... if you need "human attraction" explained to you, I am sorry ... can't help you there.

So it just so happens that no Tom and no Ladyboy ever find each other attractive?

It seems odd to me, I really mean that.

I mean... have you ever, ever seen such a couple?

It would be nice to have an insightful answer, without being attacked personally for making this observation. Geez

Let me repeat myself .....

There is no legal impediment between any eligible man and any eligible woman marrying .... if you need "human attraction" explained to you, I am sorry ... can't help you there.

Mate... read my original post... I am the one who stated that there is no legal impediment.

I am asking for insight, or opinion... not repitition of my statement with added rubbish statements... if you cannot explain why Toms and Ladyboys NEVER hook-up, surely you are missing the "human attraction" boat yourself.

By not ever going out with one another both groups lose some claim to legitimacy because I am of the opinion that after some time they would in fact revert back to their 'birth' genders... so to avoid the embarresment they avoid each other.

There, I put my neck out and actually formed a hypothesis... can you? Or are you only capable of repeating my factual statements and adding an ill disguised insult???

[notime]

If you are not attracted by the other sex, TO PROCREATE, which is the LAW of NATURE, you are suffering psycho disorders, like it or not. Certainly funny to have group masturbation when you are a pre-teen. The world is not to be put under control of pre-teens, indeed...

Good to be tolerant. Not that good to be SILLY... :jap:

Oh .. The NATURE has spoken!

Where did you get idea YOU know the laws of nature? Homosexuality is common and prevailing in nature although always in minority. So, maybe nature has some purpose in it that we didn't find out about yet? Or maybe nature doesn't have to have humanly understood "purpose"? Possible or not Mr. Thinker?

As to the "3rd sex" it really is an unfortunate phrase. It's not about what we all biologically have in the underwear but a short for describing a 3rd type of sexual identity. One is men who are attracted to women. Second is women attracted to men. The third is man attracted to men AND women attracted to woman. Sexual identity is NOT something people have control over. It is not a "psycho disorder" either and cannot be "cured" as many tried and failed. Straight people please think about if you can be "cured" from your sexual orientation. Also please think how would you feel if someone referred to you as "suffering psycho disorder" by being attracted to the sex you are attracted to.

On the issue of "gay rights" it is obvious that homosexuality is discriminated against by majority heterosexual world. Personally, I don't think homosexuals should copy social framework of heterosexual relationships that is a result of conflict between individual freedoms and cultural expectations and pressure. So there is no need for "gay marriage" for instance. But since the world is regulated by heterosexual laws and "norms" homosexuals need some legislation preventing discrimination and denial of their human rights. So, in short, YES to being able to register whoever we want as our partner. Another human. Governments and Religions hands off their sex and how and when we do it.

[lanna2011]

one of the reasons many of us come here is to get away from the crazy PC world back there! and gays 'marrying' appears to me to be a part of that - I can understand wanting legal protections if buying a house together (for example) but to marry? to show what? that they are straight (ish)? there are a cosiderable number of gays on here so I expect them to argue for the rights to 'marry' but what's the logic?

[KhunVee]

The irony of this is that if they were to make equal partners with equal rights in a gay marriage, this would probably mean that gay people would have stronger marriage rights than women.

Please qualify your statement with something more reliable than "probable." There is so much misinformation pronounced in this area that we don't need any more. If you can't back up feelings and hunches with anything substantial, please don't say anything. Just how would same sex marriage give gay people more rights than women? Ridiculous!

Women have just as much rights in marriage as men and more. They have the right to 50% of everything owned and if they divorce they get to keep the kids so in fact they have more rights and that's reliable and not "probable" information.

The most obvious one is that men are classed as the head of the house, so when land is purchased, the husband's name is the one placed on title.

Absolute B.S. Full Stop!

[SAffer]

I think Thai at Heart was just making a point of what the perception is... we see that Thai men have Mia noooi and Gic, we see that Thai men sometimes beat their wives, we see Thai men leaving the kids and wife and moving on without paying support.

In this respect he was commenting that the perception certainly is that women in Thailand do appear to have less rights.

The law does in fact recognise the Husband as the head of the houshold... I believe that a house may actually be registered in the wife's name... but the man is regarded as the legal guardian of the children for example; so in a dispute he is the one who will give or with-hold consent for the child to for example attend a certain school.

The custody rights are 'percieved' to be in favour of the ex-wife (this is after the marriage, not during it.. so strictly speaking it is not a marriage right), but the point is that it is an arrangement which often APPEARS to suit the men.

[jdinasia]

one of the reasons many of us come here is to get away from the crazy PC world back there! and gays 'marrying' appears to me to be a part of that - I can understand wanting legal protections if buying a house together (for example) but to marry? to show what? that they are straight (ish)? there are a cosiderable number of gays on here so I expect them to argue for the rights to 'marry' but what's the logic?

See post 53

and again --- don't get stuck in the label

[samurai]

What about homosexual women?

Is homosexuality amongst females less likely?

Lesbians? Funny how most homophobic men are happy to watch 2 women going at it but are disgusted by the thought of 2 men making love. I have no interest in watching 2 men "gettin it on" but it happens and in a free world why not and why not gay marriage? It wasn't that long ago in the western world that women didn't have the right to vote and mixed race marriage was illegal so same sex marriage is just another move in the right direction of humanity becoming more compassionate and open towards their fellow humans.

Funny is how men think its all about them and again forget that there are women and that they have equal rights.

And so the same sex marriage will be an option for female homosexuals too, same sex female to female couples.

Funny thing is that someone on this thread said that homosexuality is against the CALL OF NATURE. They used capital letters! By that logic then isn't celibacy against the CALL OF NATURE as we're born to reproduce? Okay same sex partners can't have kids biologically through sex but celibates can't have kids because they don't have sex so shouldn't celibate marriages between celibates also be illegal? Catholic priests when they're not fiddling little children are celibate as are Nuns and Buddhist monks so isn't their vow of celibacy going against the CALL OF NATURE and just as sinful as homosexuality. The person on the thread stated gays are living in sin so don't take that as my opinion as I don't care what two consenting adults do or don't do sexually.

Not me.

I am just surprise that some (one man) think a same sex marriage law would mostly effect homosexual men, male to male couples. looks like he ignores woman.

And that 'homosexuality' is pretty much a cultural construct of the western society that had to overcome few years of Christianity and the impact of that religion on the gender roles which had no space what in this society is called the "third gender".

[lanna2011]

whatever people may think or not think - homosexuality is not permitted (amongst many other things) in Buddhism so I can't see how it could be made 'legal' - even though here it's a 'civil' thing rather than religeous - Buddhism is the foundatrion of the country.

[KhunVee]

Because God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!

Gay couples should have exactly same the same rights as straight couples. Why does Thailand deny gay couples the chance of being equally as unhappy as married straight couples?

God don't exist and therefore Adam & Eve never existed too,... It's a tale invented by some (I must admit) very smart people.

Religion is a neurological disorder.

[jdinasia]

whatever people may think or not think - homosexuality is not permitted (amongst many other things) in Buddhism so I can't see how it could be made 'legal' - even though here it's a 'civil' thing rather than religeous - Buddhism is the foundatrion of the country.

Apparently you know nothing about Buddhism. Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Dharma. There are several good threads about this in the Buddhism sub-forum if you would like to learn more about the topic. The thing is ... I can walk into a Buddhist temple and have my relationship sanctified/recognized, I just can't do that in the local amphur office ((yes I have many friends that are gay that have had "Buddhist weddings" .. with the whole village in attendance))

I do note that you moved away from "what's the logic?" as that is fully explained ... to attempting a religious excuse for denying equality to people

[lanna2011]

whatever people may think or not think - homosexuality is not permitted (amongst many other things) in Buddhism so I can't see how it could be made 'legal' - even though here it's a 'civil' thing rather than religeous - Buddhism is the foundatrion of the country.

Apparently you know nothing about Buddhism. Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Dharma. There are several good threads about this in the Buddhism sub-forum if you would like to learn more about the topic. The thing is ... I can walk into a Buddhist temple and have my relationship sanctified/recognized, I just can't do that in the local amphur office ((yes I have many friends that are gay that have had "Buddhist weddings" .. with the whole village in attendance))

I do note that you moved away from "what's the logic?" as that is fully explained ... to attempting a religious excuse for denying equality to people

Maybe I don't know much as you galantly suggest so what does the dalai lama say?

A lot of people ask me what the "Buddhist take" on gay marriage is. Well, it depends on who you talk to. A few years back, in an interview with the CBC, the Dalai Lama rejected same-sex relationships to the surprise of many convert Buddhists, who sometimes too easily assume that Buddhist ethics are consistent with their typically progressive views.

As the Canadian interview bounced around the internet, some people were shocked and perplexed, but the Dalai Lama's position shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the issue. After all, he has been consistent. At a conference some 12 years ago, when gay leaders met with him in San Francisco to discuss the Tibetan Buddhist proscriptions against gay sex, he reiterated the traditional view that gay sex was "sexual misconduct." This view was based on restrictions found in Tibetan texts that he could not and would not change.

[jdinasia]

Perhaps Lanna2011 isn't aware that not only are we not in Tibet, but also that the Buddhism practiced in Thailand is not of Tibetan origin. Less importantly but to Lanna2011's fun statement, in the instance of HH he stated that all oral, anal or masturbatory sex fell into the area of sexual misconduct regardless of the genders involved. He is quite a traditionalist

However ------

from the wiki you most certainly glanced at but missed the point of ... http://en.wikipedia...._Lama#Sexuality

In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama explained "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexualityis okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say 'if two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay'"

However, in his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he clearly states, "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else....Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."^[68]

• ^ "Dalai Lama Urges 'Respect, Compassion, and Full Human Rights for All', including Gays". Conkin, Dennis. Bay Area Reporter, 19 June 1997
• ^ OUT Magazine February/March 1994

and from another source ----

The question of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama's stance on homosexuality bothered me and so I decided to see for myself. In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, he said that homosexuality was wrong. He later clarified that homosexuality was wrong because it involved the use of the mouth, rectum and/or hands as opposed to only using genitalia. He added that the use of the mouth, rectum and hands are also proscribed in heterosexual encounters.

The primary issue is whether an act is "sexual misconduct." The problem is that "sexual misconduct" was not defined by Buddha. An article published on the World Tibet Network News website of a transcript between an interviewer and the Dalai Lama, he explains that sexual activity, and therefore sexual misconduct, has to be separated into two different categories. The first category is for those who are in religious communities–nuns and monks. The second category is for those who are not celibate–everyday Buddhists. In the first instance, any form of sexual activity, including masturbation would be wrong because there would be ejaculate (he obviously had men in mind). However, the same could not be said of masturbation for someone not in a religious community.

http://thewickedwoma...omosexuality-2/

Please note the important parts ---- "The problem is that sexual misconduct was not defined by the Buddha." and that Lay practitioners are not in the same category as practitioners who are ordained (monks and nuns.)

Edited May 31, 2011 by jdinasia

[samurai]

It's not just a story of love but also for practical reasons it is sometimes better to get married. I am thinking of buying a house, life insurance, making dicision When The partner is unable-(like-for-surgery) etc etc

And for the narrow-minded people among us awake, we are no longer living in the Middle Ages. If I'm not mistaken, we live in a time when it should be possible that people simply must love one another without the consent of relatives friends neighbors and family. The old and trusted male and female, and of course the child is from the fifties and is certainly not the standard at this time.

For reasons like that I am not pro same-sex MARRIAGE laws.

Marriage itself is a pretty outdated and old-fashioned institution. It doesn't become modern with the same sex approach. It strengthen and re-establish just the old backward thing as social norm.

To get your relationship relationship sanctioned by the government doesn't offer you more freedom. Marriage is the problem and not that some are not allowed to do it.

Like the same sex marriage activists want to make a point with getting married, there are also many people, hetero and homosexuals alike, who made the decision NOT to marry, even if they live together and love each others since many years.

The non-married by choice have the same problem like the non-allowed by law, they are missing some practical things like not be able to sign to allow a surgery etc etc.

There we need a legal solution, some new concepts of contracts for these relationships.

[Jirapa]

whatever people may think or not think - homosexuality is not permitted (amongst many other things) in Buddhism so I can't see how it could be made 'legal' - even though here it's a 'civil' thing rather than religeous - Buddhism is the foundatrion of the country.

Are you making things up????

[jdinasia]

whatever people may think or not think - homosexuality is not permitted (amongst many other things) in Buddhism so I can't see how it could be made 'legal' - even though here it's a 'civil' thing rather than religeous - Buddhism is the foundatrion of the country.

Are you making things up????

Personally, that isn't how I would describe the behavior. He got busted on the "logic" argument so he switched to the religion argument ... which just doesn't work in Buddhism. When busted on that he switched to Tibetan Buddhism to try and make the argument, but that argument failed too ... since HH is all for human rights

[KhunVee]

It's not just a story of love but also for practical reasons it is sometimes better to get married. I am thinking of buying a house, life insurance, making dicision When The partner is unable-(like-for-surgery) etc etc

And for the narrow-minded people among us awake, we are no longer living in the Middle Ages. If I'm not mistaken, we live in a time when it should be possible that people simply must love one another without the consent of relatives friends neighbors and family. The old and trusted male and female, and of course the child is from the fifties and is certainly not the standard at this time.

For reasons like that I am not pro same-sex MARRIAGE laws.

Marriage itself is a pretty outdated and old-fashioned institution. It doesn't become modern with the same sex approach. It strengthen and re-establish just the old backward thing as social norm.

To get your relationship relationship sanctioned by the government doesn't offer you more freedom. Marriage is the problem and not that some are not allowed to do it.

Like the same sex marriage activists want to make a point with getting married, there are also many people, hetero and homosexuals alike, who made the decision NOT to marry, even if they live together and love each others since many years.

The non-married by choice have the same problem like the non-allowed by law, they are missing some practical things like not be able to sign to allow a surgery etc etc.

There we need a legal solution, some new concepts of contracts for these relationships.

No new concept needed at all, it exists many years already and exactly what they're fighting for.

We have those legal structures in place since a decade or so in Belgium (sorry I don't know the decree's exact date and number,....)

In Flemish and/or Dutch it's called a "samenlevingscontract" freely translated into living-together-contract.

No need to go to the City hall or any church,.... a notary will do and happily stamp your legal document (after charging you around 400 Euro)

Many HoLeBi's in Belgium doing just this,.... all is legal,.... and then go out party with friends and family to celebrate it.

Edited May 31, 2011 by KhunVee

[bristolgeoff]

i have some gay friends in thailand,all with boyfriends for many years.they are happy together, live together.getting married would only make it legal and equal rights for both.we live in a modern world not in the stone age

[Ulysses G.]

Why not a compromise here? Some states in America enacted "Domestic Partner" laws. These enable same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights as a "married" couple without a formal marriage. Still, many gays there insist on being legally married. It seems almost an obsession with some of them. I see no compelling reason to change this tradition from all countries for centuries.

I pretty much agree, but my opinion might "evolve" - like Obamas - as I am not dead set on it.