Gay Activists Call For Same-Sex Marriage Law In Thailand

[OccamsRazor]

Are there really 4 million khatoey's in Thailand? Sounds like a gross exaggeration to me.

There is no such thing as 3rd sex.

Tell the Buddhists that because the term "third sex" is directly from those teachings.

The Third Sex

Saturday December 12, 2009 & Thursday December 31 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld

Someone around you has a secret, a family secret. He or she was born with both male and female genitals. He's not handicapped nor is he mentally challenged. But he is faced with a continuing unresolved personal issue: should life go on this way?

The strain of not being able to share with others is unbearable, as the frustration of medical dead-ends leads to stress and the issue of being physically a man, but feeling like a woman (or vice versa) can become obsessive or even fatal.

cbc.ca

[jdinasia]

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.

Who cares what the label is .... just the equal rights as next-of-kin is enough .... The history isn't the issue here (if it were we would have to decide on a date to draw the line at .... ??

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-bennison.html (Same Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe) etc etc etc .....

Who cares? The label may be important for people wanting to make a change in "the church" but frankly all that matters is the basic human/civil rights of people.

If they can get this enacted before 3 years elapse I won't have to deposit an extra 400k if I stop working

[jdinasia]

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.

Note the un-cited copyright infringement above ----- the article goes on ......

http://www.buddhism....New&y_number=37

He did, however, advise gay Buddhist leaders to investigate further, discuss the issue, and suggested that change might come through some sort of theological consensus. But at a time when same-sex marriage has taken front-stage center in American politics, the Dalai Lama's more recent statements come as unwelcome news to proponents of civil rights.Does this mean Buddhism condemns same-sex relationships? Not at all. Contrary to popular perception, the Dalai Lama does not speak for all Buddhists. As the leader of the dominant Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism, he speaks for one slice of the world's Buddhist population. The vast majority of Buddhists do not practice in his tradition -- however much they respect and admire him -- and the Tibetan texts the Dalai Lama refers to were written centuries after the Buddha had come and gone.

Buddhism is perhaps even more diverse than Christianity. In fact, the differences among schools can be so vast that some scholars consider them different religions. Indeed, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, abbot of the Metta Forest Monastery in southern California, the Buddha never forbade gay sex for lay people as far as we know. "When he drew the line between licit and illicit sex, it had nothing to do with sexual tastes or preferences," he says, citing early texts. "He seemed more concerned with not violating the legitimate claims that other people might have on your sexual partner."

for lanna2011 to have stopped short of what was actually the reply is intellectually dishonest, as was using uncited sources --- but he knows better (now, at least)

edit to add what appears to be the link to the original source .....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-shaheen/gay-marriage-what-would-b_b_230855.html

Edited May 31, 2011 by jdinasia

[Nisa]

BTW, domestic partners (and even gay married in their home state not recognized in most states or by the federal government) in the US by no stretch of the imagination have the same rights as married couples. Anyone who asserts that needs to make better friends with google. I personally won't even waste time debating people who express that level of ignorance.

In what way do other states and the Federal Government not recognize these civil unions? To my knowledge, they do for tax purposes, insurance and medical decisions as well as most all the other benefits one is afforded when married. My understanding is they don't recognize "a marriage" between same sex couples (definition of marriage = opposite sex union in the US) but a civil contract between them affords them most all the same legal rights as a married couple. The only thing I have heard of (and not saying it is a small thing) not being afforded them is spousal social security benefits such as $250 burial contribution and being able to take the dead spouses higher benefit instead of your own in the event he/she dies. The only reason I know about this issue is because there are attempts within the government to fix this issue. But please correct me if I am wrong as I know you are very up on these issues.

[chenposeb]

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??

My partner knows a few couples who are 'Tom and Katoi' as you put it. They are in Bangkok, but they don't really have any intention on getting married. Maybe try to hang out amongst the gays and you could find a lot who qualify your intrigue.

I know of people in the UK who have gone through sex change surgery and become legally of the opposite sex then fall in love with someone of their new sex. ( In effect making it a same sex relationship as they are no longer of the opposite sex to their partner.) and having a civil partnership.

So this is really a lot deeper than just letting a couple of guys who like each other to get hitched.

As has already been mentioned there are a lot more flavours to the whole thing, gender wise and legally; mostly probably beyond your comprehension if you still are not sure how two people can fall in love and want to be with each other for life.

I for one will welcome recognising other partnerships outside of the hetrosexual one as it means I can go back and spend the rest of my life with my partner and my Thai family without VISA problems.

[Jirapa]

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

@ lanna2011: I'm not gay but I have friends who are and equal rights for all is logical. Bigot!

Edited May 31, 2011 by Jirapa

[Nisa]

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

@ lanna2011: I'm not gay but I have friends who are and equal rights for all is logical. Bigot!

I'm not sure it is right to call this person a bigot .. especially since he/she didn't call anybody a name and simply expressed his opinion. It would "appear" the poster has no issue with legal unions and/or treatment between same sex couples but simply is no in favor of "marriage". Right or wrong MANY people have a view of marriage that is one founded on religion and/or believe it is sacred and for the purposes of procreation. If many people didn't feel this way then there would be no debate on the issue and everyone would be free to marry. Personally I have no issue with what anyone does and am not hung up on the word marriage but then again I am also not against polygamy either but wonder if you would call somebody a bigot who is against polygamy because it violates their senses of what a holy union (marriage) should be.

Gay rights have come along way and they seem to be coming at even faster rate now.. Although people who have an interest in this cause need to continue to fight for it, calling people names is not the way to get there. Making them feel more intruded upon (being called a name) by those they may not fully understand is only going to strengthen their convictions that "PC" has gone to far.

[Jirapa]

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

@ lanna2011: I'm not gay but I have friends who are and equal rights for all is logical. Bigot!

I'm not sure it is right to call this person a bigot .. especially since he/she didn't call anybody a name and simply expressed his opinion. It would "appear" the poster has no issue with legal unions and/or treatment between same sex couples but simply is no in favor of "marriage". Right or wrong MANY people have a view of marriage that is one founded on religion and/or believe it is sacred and for the purposes of procreation. If many people didn't feel this way then there would be no debate on the issue and everyone would be free to marry. Personally I have no issue with what anyone does and am not hung up on the word marriage but then again I am also not against polygamy either but wonder if you would call somebody a bigot who is against polygamy because it violates their senses of what a holy union (marriage) should be.

Gay rights have come along way and they seem to be coming at even faster rate now.. Although people who have an interest in this cause need to continue to fight for it, calling people names is not the way to get there. Making them feel more intruded upon (being called a name) by those they may not fully understand is only going to strengthen their convictions that "PC" has gone to far.

".....but to marry? to show what? that they are straight (ish)?" That's bigoted! Gay people are gay and they don't want marriage to appear to be straight (ish) they want it to have the same rights married couples have and why not? I don't care as it's not an issue that concerns me as I'm married, divorced and married again but gay people deserve that right. Nuff said!

[Nisa]

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?

@ lanna2011: I'm not gay but I have friends who are and equal rights for all is logical. Bigot!

I'm not sure it is right to call this person a bigot .. especially since he/she didn't call anybody a name and simply expressed his opinion. It would "appear" the poster has no issue with legal unions and/or treatment between same sex couples but simply is no in favor of "marriage". Right or wrong MANY people have a view of marriage that is one founded on religion and/or believe it is sacred and for the purposes of procreation. If many people didn't feel this way then there would be no debate on the issue and everyone would be free to marry. Personally I have no issue with what anyone does and am not hung up on the word marriage but then again I am also not against polygamy either but wonder if you would call somebody a bigot who is against polygamy because it violates their senses of what a holy union (marriage) should be.

Gay rights have come along way and they seem to be coming at even faster rate now.. Although people who have an interest in this cause need to continue to fight for it, calling people names is not the way to get there. Making them feel more intruded upon (being called a name) by those they may not fully understand is only going to strengthen their convictions that "PC" has gone to far.

".....but to marry? to show what? that they are straight (ish)?" That's bigoted! Gay people are gay and they don't want marriage to appear to be straight (ish) they want it to have the same rights married couples have and why not? I don't care as it's not an issue that concerns me as I'm married, divorced and married again but gay people deserve that right. Nuff said!

I simply think you are showing just as much intolerance for others and don't believe the person you called a bigot deserved to be called one base on his post. And if you want people to see your side then you should have more tolerance and understanding to their views. IMO anyway.

[samurai]

Nisa has a point.

[RKASA]

It does not make any difference because in the eye of the law it is just another contract - only the ban on same sex is a social one made legal. Businesses join in unlimited partnerships and a brake up is the same legal result and often as emotional. So who cares why should only straight people put up with the contract - let them suffer too.

[Jingthing]

This is about all sexual minorities. Read the OP. Please, again, don't get hung up on the third sex thing. It's about equal marriage rights for couples who aren't standard male/female. That includes a lot of options. Most effected will be homosexual men, same sex male to male couples.

What about homosexual women?

Is homosexuality amongst females less likely?

My impression is the numbers are smaller, lifelong lesbians vs. lifelong gay men.

[Jingthing]

BTW, domestic partners (and even gay married in their home state not recognized in most states or by the federal government) in the US by no stretch of the imagination have the same rights as married couples. Anyone who asserts that needs to make better friends with google. I personally won't even waste time debating people who express that level of ignorance.

In what way do other states and the Federal Government not recognize these civil unions? To my knowledge, they do for tax purposes, insurance and medical decisions as well as most all the other benefits one is afforded when married. My understanding is they don't recognize "a marriage" between same sex couples (definition of marriage = opposite sex union in the US) but a civil contract between them affords them most all the same legal rights as a married couple. The only thing I have heard of (and not saying it is a small thing) not being afforded them is spousal social security benefits such as $250 burial contribution and being able to take the dead spouses higher benefit instead of your own in the event he/she dies. The only reason I know about this issue is because there are attempts within the government to fix this issue. But please correct me if I am wrong as I know you are very up on these issues.

Your personal googler at your service.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

To my mind, lack of social security benefit survivorship and immigration rights for spouses (both directly related to complete lack of recognition by the feds) are really huge. But there are so MANY differences, it's beyond absurd to assert they are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT!!!

Edited May 31, 2011 by Jingthing

[samurai]

This is about all sexual minorities. Read the OP. Please, again, don't get hung up on the third sex thing. It's about equal marriage rights for couples who aren't standard male/female. That includes a lot of options. Most effected will be homosexual men, same sex male to male couples.

What about homosexual women?

Is homosexuality amongst females less likely?

My impression is the numbers are smaller, lifelong lesbians vs. lifelong gay men.

That is the impression of a western male homosexual and his view on Thailand, right?

Any other sources?

[reason1]

@reason1

Wow you are a typical example of a homophobic. I do not know under which rock or cave in which you have lived the past 20 years but I welcome you into the 21st century.

One in 10 gay men in London has the virus, according HIV prevention charity the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT).

[sausageandmash]

God doesn't exist in your opinion.

It was actually a humerous quote from a comedy show.

Don't be an over-sensitive poof.

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.

[sausageandmash]

It was a humerous comment. And by the way, It's mankind, not human kind.

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!

[Ulysses G.]

God doesn't exist in your opinion.

And his opinion is nothing but a guess.

[chooka]

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?

I agree with you in that they should be afforded the same rights. Thailand is not the only country that denies them the rights Australia also will not allow same sex marriage. I am not gay but have nothing against homosexuals or transexuals in fact I quite like it because it leaves more women for me.

[lanna2011]

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.)

indeed HH did say that - and sexual intercourse is intended for procreation - and I am well aware of the differing schools of Buddhism - HH is the most respected and widely revered Buddhist in the world I'd say.

[lanna2011]

I'm not sure it is right to call this person a bigot .. especially since he/she didn't call anybody a name and simply expressed his opinion. It would "appear" the poster has no issue with legal unions and/or treatment between same sex couples but simply is no in favor of "marriage". Right or wrong MANY people have a view of marriage that is one founded on religion and/or believe it is sacred and for the purposes of procreation. If many people didn't feel this way then there would be no debate on the issue and everyone would be free to marry. Personally I have no issue with what anyone does and am not hung up on the word marriage but then again I am also not against polygamy either but wonder if you would call somebody a bigot who is against polygamy because it violates their senses of what a holy union (marriage) should be.

Gay rights have come along way and they seem to be coming at even faster rate now.. Although people who have an interest in this cause need to continue to fight for it, calling people names is not the way to get there. Making them feel more intruded upon (being called a name) by those they may not fully understand is only going to strengthen their convictions that "PC" has gone to far.

".....but to marry? to show what? that they are straight (ish)?" That's bigoted! Gay people are gay and they don't want marriage to appear to be straight (ish) they want it to have the same rights married couples have and why not? I don't care as it's not an issue that concerns me as I'm married, divorced and married again but gay people deserve that right. Nuff said!

I simply think you are showing just as much intolerance for others and don't believe the person you called a bigot deserved to be called one base on his post. And if you want people to see your side then you should have more tolerance and understanding to their views. IMO anyway.

Thank you - I am not anti-gay nor anti-equal rights nor a bigot - I just challenge 'gay marriage' and a few other points but it seems anyone who debates a different view than the majority get's crucified

[Jingthing]

Thank you - I am not anti-gay nor anti-equal rights nor a bigot - I just challenge 'gay marriage' and a few other points but it seems anyone who debates a different view than the majority get's crucified

Bigot Schmigot.

I for one don't accept for one second the idea that a person can be "not ... anti-equal rights" AND be against legal gay marriage. That's absurd. Be bold and honest about where you are coming from. You are indeed anti-equal rights for gays. You have lots of company. Happily, in much of the world, your retro side is on the LOSING side of history. In other parts, things are going backwards though. What's next someone saying they are for making blacks stay on the back of the bus but don't think they are anti-equal rights.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[lanna2011]

Thank you - I am not anti-gay nor anti-equal rights nor a bigot - I just challenge 'gay marriage' and a few other points but it seems anyone who debates a different view than the majority get's crucified

Bigot Schmigot.

I for one don't accept for one second the idea that a person can be "not ... anti-equal rights" AND be against legal gay marriage. That's absurd. Be bold and honest about where you are coming from. You are indeed anti-equal rights for gays. You have lots of company. Happily, in much of the world, your retro side is on the LOSING side of history. In other parts, things are going backwards though. What's next someone saying they are for making blacks stay on the back of the bus but don't think they are anti-equal rights.

everyone is entitled to their view - and (as Christine Keeler once said) 'you would say that wouldn't you' but, you might not like it, but most of the world isn't gay or lesbian - I have nothing against you or them but I am entitled to hold my view that gay marriage is a sham and i don't agree with them raising kids either - yes that's my view and probably the silent majority's view too - no offence intended

[Jingthing]

Fine! Just don't say you are pro equal rights. You ain't by definition. Yes, that makes you an object of derision, and justifiably so, just like modern people deride people opposing equal rights for other groups in the past. You are no different but you just don't know it yet. It is still socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for gays, but not forever.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

indeed HH did say that - and sexual intercourse is intended for procreation - and I am well aware of the differing schools of Buddhism - HH is the most respected and widely revered Buddhist in the world I'd say.

And you'd be wrong, I'd say ... he is however the most singularly well known. I can only assume that you noted he was for equal rights and that he did not as you suggest say that homosexuality is wrong by its nature and that his suggestion that homosexuality is not wrong under the situation he was asked about and replied to in the OUT magazine article He said that any sex not intended for procreation is, in the Tibetan tradition, considered 'sexual misconduct' and that would include so many things that it would make it even a more of an intrusion into human rights (across the board --- including birth control for heterosexuals --- etc etc etc) .... The great thing about Buddhism is that not only do HH's ideas not have to be followed, he suggests that (as does the Dharma) the path to enlightenment is individual

More on the topic of Buddhism --- even though it was just thrown into the argument as a smoke-screen for bigotry ---- http://www.shangrala.org/RELIGIONS/5Buddhism/Buddhist%20Sects.html It is worth note that Tibetan Buddhism is actually Lamaism --- and that across the world the number of adherents break down like this ---- Mahayana 185 million adherents, Theraveda 124 million, and Lamaism (Tibetan) only 20 million. source http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Buddhism

Being well known in and of itself amounts to nothing

It is in Tibet that Buddhism has achieved its greatest triumph One out of every five Tibetan men dedicates himself to the monastic life. But Tibetan Buddhism is based on an offshoot of Mahayana that emphasizes the supernatural and sacred rites directed toward pure magic To this the Tibetans have added their own magic rites and sorcery, their own religion, Bon.

source http://www.shangrala.org/RELIGIONS/5Buddhism/Buddhist%20Sects.html

Your stance on the topic has changed radically throughout this thread and the other thread ... from asking about the logic (and having said logic clearly explained to you) ... to bringing in religion and Thailand (and having that issue soundly defeated)... to saying you are for equal rights but calling gay marriage a "sham" which is self-contradictory

[jdinasia]

BTW --- polls by definition kinda suck ..... but it appears that in a blind opinion poll of TVF members .... the silent majority approve of gay marriage and if you include domestic partnership ---- the numbers are overwhelmingly in support of equal rights legislation

[lanna2011]

BTW --- polls by definition kinda suck ..... but it appears that in a blind opinion poll of TVF members .... the silent majority approve of gay marriage and if you include domestic partnership ---- the numbers are overwhelmingly in support of equal rights legislation

http://www.thaivisa....ge-in-thailand/

I don't doubt it

[lanna2011]

indeed HH did say that - and sexual intercourse is intended for procreation - and I am well aware of the differing schools of Buddhism - HH is the most respected and widely revered Buddhist in the world I'd say.

And you'd be wrong, I'd say ... he is however the most singularly well known. I can only assume that you noted he was for equal rights and that he did not as you suggest say that homosexuality is wrong by its nature and that his suggestion that homosexuality is not wrong under the situation he was asked about and replied to in the OUT magazine article He said that any sex not intended for procreation is, in the Tibetan tradition, considered 'sexual misconduct' and that would include so many things that it would make it even a more of an intrusion into human rights (across the board --- including birth control for heterosexuals --- etc etc etc) .... The great thing about Buddhism is that not only do HH's ideas not have to be followed, he suggests that (as does the Dharma) the path to enlightenment is individual

More on the topic of Buddhism --- even though it was just thrown into the argument as a smoke-screen for bigotry ---- http://www.shangrala...st%20Sects.html It is worth note that Tibetan Buddhism is actually Lamaism --- and that across the world the number of adherents break down like this ---- Mahayana 185 million adherents, Theraveda 124 million, and Lamaism (Tibetan) only 20 million. source http://www.adherents...s.html#Buddhism

Being well known in and of itself amounts to nothing

It is in Tibet that Buddhism has achieved its greatest triumph One out of every five Tibetan men dedicates himself to the monastic life. But Tibetan Buddhism is based on an offshoot of Mahayana that emphasizes the supernatural and sacred rites directed toward pure magic To this the Tibetans have added their own magic rites and sorcery, their own religion, Bon.

source http://www.shangrala...st%20Sects.html

Your stance on the topic has changed radically throughout this thread and the other thread ... from asking about the logic (and having said logic clearly explained to you) ... to bringing in religion and Thailand (and having that issue soundly defeated)... to saying you are for equal rights but calling gay marriage a "sham" which is self-contradictory

I have the greatest respect for HH and believe he is a great leader and spiritual mentor - I have heard him personally and read many of his books and we are honoured to walk this earth with such a great man. I do not conclude from my studies the same result as you - but then I am not gay and so I believe I see it without bias. In its truest sense (from whatever path) Buddhism is against promiscous sex and is in favour of control, detachment and balance - something your reply lacked

edit: added smile

Edited June 1, 2011 by lanna2011

[granuaile]

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??

Actually there are, and they have been reported in the local Thai-language media occasionally... But if you want to know why rare, that should be obvious... Anatomy. For some toms they would never consider a katoi even if they had had surgery, but others would. And most katoi whether they have surgery to change gender or not want what a tom cannot provide... Plain and simple....

But it does happen sometimes....

For the record, I agree with some of the comments others have made...

[earthpig]

Fine! Just don't say you are pro equal rights. You ain't by definition. Yes, that makes you an object of derision, and justifiably so, just like modern people deride people opposing equal rights for other groups in the past. You are no different but you just don't know it yet. It is still socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for gays, but not forever.

this is homosexual apologetics from Thaivisa's resident master of the art. it is not only in some circles socially acceptable to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, it is quite logical to do so. and in so doing one does not demean homosexuals, but rather dignifies them and everyone else.

granting rights to people of colour [as argued further above] and granting them to homosexuals are not logically analogous. we cannot change our race; we can change our behaviour. surely a blue man should have the same rights as a green one for, among other reasons, his color is not his doing. but does a man whose behaviour has brought him to prison deserve the same rights as a free man?

the point is that what we do with our free will can be fundamental in any discussion of our rights.

As an atheist, i will admit to a certain mischevious pleasure in quoting the former Joe Ratzinger (in his brilliantly argued Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons).

"It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

... In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."

His argument, you will note, is not based on overt religious grounds, but on humanistic ones. The homosexual is not a victim; rather he like all of us the owner of a free will, and is thus responsible for his actions. To argue otherwise is to demean him (and everyone else.)

Turning to psychology, we know from peer reviewed, scientific studies that homosexuals suffer 3-4 times the general population's rate of suicide, depression, neurosis and psychosis. And unlike what the homosexual apologists will always claim as the cause of this disquiet--discrimination--in fact other peer reviewed, professional studies reveal the source of the homosexual's disquiet to be rampant infidelity and consequent lonliness in this community. Based on this professional evidence, Ratzinger is not wrong in referring to homosexuality as a "moral disorder."

Thus homosexuality is not the sort of thing the mother of a new borne wishes for her child. Rather, it may too frequently lead to a deplorably sad life; surely not one deserving of scorn much less violence, but certainly one deserving of pity. And anything-like same sex marriage--that encourages and legitimizes this behaviour ought not to be encouraged. Whatever the arguments on this matter may be that influence religious persons, certainly the rest of us should be against encouraging homosexuality on grounds of compassion. (Anyone who doubts this need only visit Pattaya to witness its large aging population of melancholy falang homosexuals.)

So yes, it is entirely possible to be in favor of equal rights and against same sex marriage. It is a view anchored in the notions of free will and compassion, and it confers dignity to all, including homosexuals.