Gay Activists Call For Same-Sex Marriage Law In Thailand

[jdinasia]

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

"promiscuous sex"? I agree, promiscuous sex is "sexual misconduct" and I also agree with HH that "sexual misconduct" = "sexual misconduct" LOL http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4461755

You fail to address what HH said directly when asked in the OUT magazine interview. Again the topic isn't Buddhism -- that is just a smokescreen being thrown up to mask bigotry. My reply quite simply addressed what was said. That you do not address any single issue that was raised (by you) and put down by simple argument (by me) is quite telling. That the Dharma does not define "sexual misconduct" is clear. That HH when asked about a gay couple directly ---- gave a clear answer. That on the issue of homosexuality he stated he wasn't the foremost authority and that the Sangha would decide as more was revealed to individuals..... That HH represents a rather small percentage of Buddhists in the world (1/6th the number that practice the Buddhism commonly practiced in Thailand, and less than the number of Thai adherents to Buddhism) is something you also ignored ... but then again, you have an agenda. The change in your arguments clearly show the agenda you have, which is certainly not one of control (unless you mean control of others), detachment, or 'balance"

Edited June 1, 2011 by jdinasia

[chenposeb]

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.

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

[jdinasia]

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

Agreed --- that in Thailand it is not a religious issue. Actual marriage in Thailand is purely civil. I have known MANY gay couples that have had marriage ceremonies in Thai temples. I will accept your word on the reality on the ground in the Tibetan tradition as it matches my own experience (of dealing with Tibetan Buddhism --- I have no experience in the Tibetan tradition as a practitioner.)

[techboy]

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.

touché

[lanna2011]

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

No where have I ever stated I was against gays or what they may do in private - it is their business and their karma entirely. I have reservations about 'marriage' only.

[lanna2011]

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

"promiscuous sex"? I agree, promiscuous sex is "sexual misconduct" and I also agree with HH that "sexual misconduct" = "sexual misconduct" LOL http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4461755

You fail to address what HH said directly when asked in the OUT magazine interview. Again the topic isn't Buddhism -- that is just a smokescreen being thrown up to mask bigotry. My reply quite simply addressed what was said. That you do not address any single issue that was raised (by you) and put down by simple argument (by me) is quite telling. That the Dharma does not define "sexual misconduct" is clear. That HH when asked about a gay couple directly ---- gave a clear answer. That on the issue of homosexuality he stated he wasn't the foremost authority and that the Sangha would decide as more was revealed to individuals..... That HH represents a rather small percentage of Buddhists in the world (1/6th the number that practice the Buddhism commonly practiced in Thailand, and less than the number of Thai adherents to Buddhism) is something you also ignored ... but then again, you have an agenda. The change in your arguments clearly show the agenda you have, which is certainly not one of control (unless you mean control of others), detachment, or 'balance"

read 120 and learn you are a master of twist and turn, smoke and mirrors - I am for equal rights and against discrimination - I was arguing my non-support for gay marriage but you try and turn it into something else entirely - I am not anti-gay nor have I stated I am

[lanna2011]

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.

agree 100% - much better put than my feeble effort - but resident 'know it all's' won't accept any of it - cause they know everything

[timekeeper]

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.

agree 100% - much better put than my feeble effort - but resident 'know it all's' won't accept any of it - cause they know everything

for someone who only joined seven days ago, i think you have got ''the know it all '' part down already

probably had to join a forum to get someone to talk to you........

Edited June 1, 2011 by timekeeper

[chenposeb]

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

No where have I ever stated I was against gays or what they may do in private - it is their business and their karma entirely. I have reservations about 'marriage' only.

And I don't see a statement accusing you of anything so maybe we are in agreement? I was expressing my point of view with my experience in a tradition that has been brought into the thread.

I did make accusations that 'some' people pass off their own ideas as being the beliefs of other, sometimes more credibly viewed people. For that I apologise if it caused offence.

[jdinasia]

read 120 and learn you are a master of twist and turn, smoke and mirrors - I am for equal rights and against discrimination - I was arguing my non-support for gay marriage but you try and turn it into something else entirely - I am not anti-gay nor have I stated I am

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

[lanna2011]

Well, I used to be a monk (authentic tibetan lineage) for many years. Met my partner in Thailand. Had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed by the abbot and full sangha of the local temple in Thailand (authentic Forest tradition). I am still involved with the temple I used to be a monk at. My partner and I take a full role in the Buddhist temples of Tibetan and Thai tradition (my partner has been a Thai monk).

We have the full blessings of the respective abbots/lamas at the temples and are accepted by the communities in both Thailand and UK.

The only problem is that LEGALLY we are not recognised as a co-habiting couple in Thailand.

If the law doesn't change soon, I am going to have to get Thai citizenship (not so bad) but for sake of ease the new laws would be good.

It is definately not a religious point of contention (I have read and studied most of the religious laws and texts for both monks and lay people) but purely a personal one, which some religious people don't like to own their own views so pass them on as some other high ranking religious figure's stance on the matter.

Those familiar with Tibetan style with know that there are opposing answers and same answers and unconnected answers for each question raised.

No where have I ever stated I was against gays or what they may do in private - it is their business and their karma entirely. I have reservations about 'marriage' only.

And I don't see a statement accusing you of anything so maybe we are in agreement? I was expressing my point of view with my experience in a tradition that has been brought into the thread.

I did make accusations that 'some' people pass off their own ideas as being the beliefs of other, sometimes more credibly viewed people. For that I apologise if it caused offence.

It is for me to apologize to you - I was not referring to your post but just making a general statement which I should not have attached to your post

[lanna2011]

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.

agree 100% - much better put than my feeble effort - but resident 'know it all's' won't accept any of it - cause they know everything

for someone who only joined seven days ago, i think you have got ''the know it all '' part down already

probably had to join a forum to get someone to talk to you........

maybe haha

[lanna2011]

read 120 and learn you are a master of twist and turn, smoke and mirrors - I am for equal rights and against discrimination - I was arguing my non-support for gay marriage but you try and turn it into something else entirely - I am not anti-gay nor have I stated I am

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

[timekeeper]

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.

agree 100% - much better put than my feeble effort - but resident 'know it all's' won't accept any of it - cause they know everything

for someone who only joined seven days ago, i think you have got ''the know it all '' part down already

probably had to join a forum to get someone to talk to you........

maybe haha

a buddhist monk set up a hot dog stall outside the temple

i said 'make me one with everything''

i gave him a 1000 baht note

he gave me the hot dog but no change

i said ''wheres my change?''

he said'' change comes from within''........

[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??

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...

Thanks for at least attempting to answer my question... though of course you also couldn't resist the urge to insult me personally, be that as it may>>

So, if the reason is anatomical, it raises the question; does the Tom really feel that she is a he in a woman's body, or is it in fact not the case at all, but the truth is that it is just an unattractive she who wishes to have a cute little she to dominate? I mean, people are telling me that transexuals are truly different to their physical status, so why is it that they are so narrow minded as not to accept that their opposite number is just the same? Is it possible that they are seeking someone to define them?

I accept that there may be some very isolated cases of such unions. But mostly, I see Toms with girls who are at most bi-sexual, and when asked would actually deny being homosexual at all. They see the Tom as a man. Based on what these folks have all told me in conversations, I have asked the question. By questioning something we become informed.

I think it is all silly, really... there are so many Toms and Lady boys in Thailand, I can't believe that they are all genuine, and the fact that out of so many very very few actually hook-up with one another tells me i's more of a fashion than a true feeling.

Also, I want to distinguish between the folks who are transgender and those who just plainly find members of the same sex attractive. The latter group, is much easier to understand because they they say... hey I am a guy, but I like other guys, or whatever the situation.

I question the woman who says 'Kap' and the man who says 'Kaa'... they are the ones who confuse me.

[jdinasia]

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

So ... in other words you are not for equal rights ... and thus are for discrimination. Equal = Equal ... not "all but"

equality simply doesn't need any caveats

[samurai]

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

So ... in other words you are not for equal rights ... and thus are for discrimination. Equal = Equal ... not "all but"

equality simply doesn't need any caveats

Every man has the right to marry a woman and every woman has the right marry a man.

No-one is forced to marry someone.

[pendragon]

A newcomers perspective: I just joined and enjoyed reading this - its a tricky subject but I don't think the name calling helps.

I have read all the posts and I just see different points of view but there is a certain 'there is only one way' from some people - I think many would agree with equal rights but stop short of 'marriage' this doesn't make them all bigots. IMHO

[jdinasia]

A newcomers perspective: I just joined and enjoyed reading this - its a tricky subject but I don't think the name calling helps.

I have read all the posts and I just see different points of view but there is a certain 'there is only one way' from some people - I think many would agree with equal rights but stop short of 'marriage' this doesn't make them all bigots. IMHO

So you would apply the caveat ---- "equal in all respects --- excluding ..." ?

Personally I don't care about the label ..... marriage/civil-union etc .. it just doesn't matter, does it?

[samurai]

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

For the record, that is one of the comments i tend to agree with...

[earthpig]

equality simply doesn't need any caveats

oh yes it does.

its one hell of a big caveat to be denied your freedom. the jailed convict doesnt have the same rights as the innocent. not much equality for the convict who has lost his freedom, is there?

and the reason the convict is denied his freedom because of certain actions he undertook using his free will. thus it is accepted (in every society with which i am familiar) that equal treatment can be lost as a function of a person's behaviour. there is no dictate of logic or morality that a person must be granted rights equal to others irrespective of his behaviour.

thus should a society conclude, say, that homosexual marriage encourages homosexual behaviour and that encouraging homosexual behaviour is for whatever reason not something it wishes to encourage, it is entirely consistent for it to deny same sex marriage.

Consider for example that certain jurisdictions deny the alleged right to ride my motorcycle without a helmet, on the view that society has an important interest in reducing the probability that i will end up in long term care due to neurological damage from a crash. and so it is too that society may conclude that it has an interest in reducing the probability that i become depressed, neurotic, psychotic or suicidal. as discussed above, on the available evidence one way to do that is to discourage me from engaging (at least exclusively) in the homosexual lifestyle.

It is very important to understand that this conclusion comes from a celebration of human liberty and dignity and its corollary, individual responsibility, and not from a denial of these. As Ratzinger says (see the longer quote above) "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." Considerations of the welfare of society at large can and must be used to constrain certain behaviours of society's constituent groups, but never must it be used to (truly) oppress them.

And therein of course lies the rub: when does suppression of an activity or denial of an alleged right (eg. same sex legal union) become oppressive to those affected? To me its seems obvious that the answer to this has to come by somehow adding up the benefits and costs accruing to both society at large and to the affected group, then weighing them. Easy to say; very difficult to do because individual preference plays a determinative role.

in the meantime, we should not be fooled by equality arguments when it comes to homosexual legal unions. Homosexuals have precisely the same rights as heterosexuals with respect to marriage: they can marry someone of the opposite sex; and neither homo or hetero can marry the same sex, nor (perhaps most sadly of all) can any of us marry that most loyal of companions, Fido.

[lanna2011]

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

So ... in other words you are not for equal rights ... and thus are for discrimination. Equal = Equal ... not "all but"

equality simply doesn't need any caveats

There are always caveats - for people with disabilities (for instance - say downs syndrome) or people of particular religious faiths. Now you may argue they should have equal rights too - you probably will argue that but it doesn't hold true. What about the equal right of us all to have food? enough money? why should there be rich and poor? aren't we all equal? what about minors? children? should they have equal rights? and terrorists too? what about animal rights? or as the other poster said my right to marry Fido?

[jdinasia]

Wait ---- let's see if you are telling the truth.

If you are for equal rights, then that MUST mean you are willing to state that my relationship of 8+ years with the same man is worthy of all the equal rights under the law as the relationship of any other 2 people, including heterosexuals. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that I should have the equal right to visitation in the hospital, the equal right to inheritance, the right to equal treatment in the form of immigration, the equal right to adoption, the equal right to all things that other people have, including marriage? (remember marriage in Thailand is purely a civil matter -- that ensures all of those other rights

If you are NOT for equal rights then you are not against discrimination

BTW--- the smoke and mirrors has all been on your part --- You asked about the logic and it was explained. You switched to religion as a smoke screen for your bigotry and it was explained and refuted in direct quotes ....

BTW ---- earthpig needs to show us some of his peer-reviewed claims ... as they are hogwash (pun intended) other than that gay teens in the USA are far more prone to suicide ... those same studies citing that will be the ones calling for better education and acceptance of gays as well as increased hate-crime legislation etc etc ... but let's see him produce them first

yes you should have all the equal rights - the only one I would have an issue with is adoption and marriage which are primarily for raising a family - all the others are your business and no one else's (inheritance, immigration etc. etc.)

So ... in other words you are not for equal rights ... and thus are for discrimination. Equal = Equal ... not "all but"

equality simply doesn't need any caveats

There are always caveats - for people with disabilities (for instance - say downs syndrome) or people of particular religious faiths. Now you may argue they should have equal rights too - you probably will argue that but it doesn't hold true. What about the equal right of us all to have food? enough money? why should there be rich and poor? aren't we all equal? what about minors? children? should they have equal rights? and terrorists too? what about animal rights? or as the other poster said my right to marry Fido?

as said --- you are NOT for equal rights and do accept discrimination. The other smokescreens are a nice new addition ... but since you already got beat down on logic, and religion .... now you resort to this? (BTW --- are people with Down's Syndrome not allowed to marry?)

Either you are for equal rights or you aren't ... you have stated that you are not with "all but"

[themockrat]

How about equal rights for all Thais first? Just a suggestion.

[lanna2011]

There are always caveats - for people with disabilities (for instance - say downs syndrome) or people of particular religious faiths. Now you may argue they should have equal rights too - you probably will argue that but it doesn't hold true. What about the equal right of us all to have food? enough money? why should there be rich and poor? aren't we all equal? what about minors? children? should they have equal rights? and terrorists too? what about animal rights? or as the other poster said my right to marry Fido?

as said --- you are NOT for equal rights and do accept discrimination. The other smokescreens are a nice new addition ... but since you already got beat down on logic, and religion .... now you resort to this? (BTW --- are people with Down's Syndrome not allowed to marry?)

Either you are for equal rights or you aren't ... you have stated that you are not with "all but"

I see you skipped replying to earthpig and we will have to agree to disagree

[jdinasia]

I see you skipped replying to earthpig and we will have to agree to disagree

I addressed a fallacy in earthpig's hogwash (yes, the pun is still intended) --- and yes we will have to disagree simply because of your various attempts in this and the other thread to throw up different smokescreens to hide the fact that you are in fact, for discrimination. Starting with the logic ... then to the religion ... then to equality can be "equal in all but..."

[jdinasia]

How about equal rights for all Thais first? Just a suggestion.

This is a Thai issue FAR more than it is a foreigner issue ..... so you are on the correct track.

[granuaile]

Thanks for at least attempting to answer my question... though of course you also couldn't resist the urge to insult me personally, be that as it may>>

So, if the reason is anatomical, it raises the question; does the Tom really feel that she is a he in a woman's body, or is it in fact not the case at all, but the truth is that it is just an unattractive she who wishes to have a cute little she to dominate? I mean, people are telling me that transexuals are truly different to their physical status, so why is it that they are so narrow minded as not to accept that their opposite number is just the same? Is it possible that they are seeking someone to define them?

I accept that there may be some very isolated cases of such unions. But mostly, I see Toms with girls who are at most bi-sexual, and when asked would actually deny being homosexual at all. They see the Tom as a man. Based on what these folks have all told me in conversations, I have asked the question. By questioning something we become informed.

I think it is all silly, really... there are so many Toms and Lady boys in Thailand, I can't believe that they are all genuine, and the fact that out of so many very very few actually hook-up with one another tells me i's more of a fashion than a true feeling.

Also, I want to distinguish between the folks who are transgender and those who just plainly find members of the same sex attractive. The latter group, is much easier to understand because they they say... hey I am a guy, but I like other guys, or whatever the situation.

I question the woman who says 'Kap' and the man who says 'Kaa'... they are the ones who confuse me.

Sorry was not trying to insult you

I know a lot of tom/butch and while many identify with men to some degree, I only know one who has told me they want to change gender (and they are Indonesian). My Thai friends may dress masculine, may us masculine particles, etc., but they don't want be a man anatomically.

Actually for many it is a phase, especially younger ones in teen years and often in girls schools where it is very popular. There is a huge variety in the tomboy community, most meet people, fall in love, and just wanna be happy. I do agree that many often end up with bisexual women, and they are often exploited - more than once I have had tom friends perpetually broke supporting extravagant dys. And when they cannot anymore the dys dump them for someone else or for a guy. But the tomboys, those for whom iit is not a passing phase, are sincere, but not really trying to be men...

I think in someways Thai society forces people into roles... Especially kathoey. I don't think most kathoey really want to be women, but they want to have a man to be with and take care of them and love them, but Thailand doesn't really offer many options and - I believe - pushes many gay men into the role of kathoey where they end up often sexually exploited (not only by gay men but straight men as well who can then justify it). I am no expert but these observations are just based on the people I have known.

So yes for many younger toms it is a phase, a fad. But once they reach maturity they are sort of filtered out. But I know tons in their early 20s to my age (I don't wanna tell that) for whom it is really who they are, though many may be pushed into the masculine role (and some are much less butch than others).

Re transsexuals, I do not consider most toms or most kathoey transsexual, transgender yes (in their gender expression), but transsexuals consistently identify as women from childhood, and not because of sex or because a fetish but because of who they are inside. And I will tell you what I love about tomboys. They are far more understanding, chivalrous, kind, caring than most men or women (including lesbian women). They usually carry your bag for u, are concerned for your welfare, treat you like you are important... And I think where they find someone who can love them and want to legitimize that relationship in the eyes of the state they should have that right to happiness. And for myself, I hope that if I meet anyone I can do the same so that they have the right to draw my social security benefits later in life, claim benefits from my retirement plan, and if I ever return to the US (very unlikely as long as Thailand lets me stay) come with me. Maybe not every couple you see is sincere, but many are. Whether tom-femme, lesbian, gay men, or a kathoey with a straight or gay male lover... Everyone deserves happiness and for many marriage and the commitment that brings is a part of it. I have two friends who hope to marry this year, perhaps in Australia. Nepal allows same sex marriage too now, and China has been mulling it.

BTW I never consider a tom as an "unattractive she" - I consider them handsome shes. Just me and my pov... As I said I am no expert, but have friends who are kathoy, and many who are tom (the majority of my friends actually I think)....

Edited June 2, 2011 by granuaile

[SAffer]

Thanks for at least attempting to answer my question... though of course you also couldn't resist the urge to insult me personally, be that as it may>>

So, if the reason is anatomical, it raises the question; does the Tom really feel that she is a he in a woman's body, or is it in fact not the case at all, but the truth is that it is just an unattractive she who wishes to have a cute little she to dominate? I mean, people are telling me that transexuals are truly different to their physical status, so why is it that they are so narrow minded as not to accept that their opposite number is just the same? Is it possible that they are seeking someone to define them?

I accept that there may be some very isolated cases of such unions. But mostly, I see Toms with girls who are at most bi-sexual, and when asked would actually deny being homosexual at all. They see the Tom as a man. Based on what these folks have all told me in conversations, I have asked the question. By questioning something we become informed.

I think it is all silly, really... there are so many Toms and Lady boys in Thailand, I can't believe that they are all genuine, and the fact that out of so many very very few actually hook-up with one another tells me i's more of a fashion than a true feeling.

Also, I want to distinguish between the folks who are transgender and those who just plainly find members of the same sex attractive. The latter group, is much easier to understand because they they say... hey I am a guy, but I like other guys, or whatever the situation.

I question the woman who says 'Kap' and the man who says 'Kaa'... they are the ones who confuse me.

Sorry was not trying to insult you

I know a lot of tom/butch and while many identify with men to some degree, I only know one who has told me they want to change gender (and they are Indonesian). My Thai friends may dress masculine, may us masculine particles, etc., but they don't want be a man anatomically.

Actually for many it is a phase, especially younger ones in teen years and often in girls schools where it is very popular. There is a huge variety in the tomboy community, most meet people, fall in love, and just wanna be happy. I do agree that many often end up with bisexual women, and they are often exploited - more than once I have had tom friends perpetually broke supporting extravagant dys. And when they cannot anymore the dys dump them for someone else or for a guy. But the tomboys, those for whom iit is not a passing phase, are sincere, but not really trying to be men...

I think in someways Thai society forces people into roles... Especially kathoey. I don't think most kathoey really want to be women, but they want to have a man to be with and take care of them and love them, but Thailand doesn't really offer many options and - I believe - pushes many gay men into the role of kathoey where they end up often sexually exploited (not only by gay men but straight men as well who can then justify it). I am no expert but these observations are just based on the people I have known.

So yes for many younger toms it is a phase, a fad. But once they reach maturity they are sort of filtered out. But I know tons in their early 20s to my age (I don't wanna tell that) for whom it is really who they are, though many may be pushed into the masculine role (and some are much less butch than others).

Re transsexuals, I do not consider most toms or most kathoey transsexual, transgender yes (in their gender expression), but transsexuals consistently identify as women from childhood, and not because of sex or because a fetish but because of who they are inside. And I will tell you what I love about tomboys. They are far more understanding, chivalrous, kind, caring than most men or women (including lesbian women). They usually carry your bag for u, are concerned for your welfare, treat you like you are important... And I think where they find someone who can love them and want to legitimize that relationship in the eyes of the state they should have that right to happiness. And for myself, I hope that if I meet anyone I can do the same so that they have the right to draw my social security benefits later in life, claim benefits from my retirement plan, and if I ever return to the US (very unlikely as long as Thailand lets me stay) come with me. Maybe not every couple you see is sincere, but many are. Whether tom-femme, lesbian, gay men, or a kathoey with a straight or gay male lover... Everyone deserves happiness and for many marriage and the commitment that brings is a part of it. I have two friends who hope to marry this year, perhaps in Australia. Nepal allows same sex marriage too now, and China has been mulling it.

BTW I never consider a tom as an "unattractive she" - I consider them handsome shes. Just me and my pov... As I said I am no expert, but have friends who are kathoy, and many who are tom (the majority of my friends actually I think)....

Mmm.. interesting read, thank you.

I think my perception has been rather tainted by two things.

1) My best friend in Bangkok is a gay man, and he is neither top nor bottom... he just happens to find handsome model types guys attractive. So, I get where he is coming from because he shares his views with me, and we have a pretty good understanding. I still don't get how he would rather kiss another guy, but that is not important. So, I start forming this perception that a man is still a man, though he may like to be with other men... you know?

2) I lived in BKK for about 6 years, and during this time I had a room in which a Tom had hher little Dy to play with. Her other Tom mates would come around and they'd water-board, strangle, suffocate the young girl whilst utilising their strap-on or whatever... see some things are clearly audiable, but other would be speculation... that they were water-boarding and performing some sexual acts on the girl was clear...

Anyhow, it made me kinda negative to Thai homosexuals, especially Toms... and it was even more shoking to me that other would just do nothing about it. You could her the girl scream/choke/cry/cum in the corridor. I understand some Thia, so I could clearly hear them tell her to take medicine, and then they would leave her to sleep for a few days. I was sickened and facinated at the same time.

At university, which is where I interact with many people, I have asked girls (and guys) about some of the dynamics behind it. Let us not pretend that the number of non-straight (for the sake of clarity) people is proportional to the rest of the world. I don't know the numbers, but Thailand sure does have many people who are not straight. And it is interesting that almost no Dys regard themselves as lesbian.

About the type-casting... I know it frustrates my friend (from point 1 above), because he has a hard time finding a Thai partner who is not a screaming queen.

Anyhow, you raise some interesting points... but I still think that is a masculine woman and a feminine man get together... eventually they would revert to traditional roles.

If that makes me ignorant, so be it.

If people think that my ignorance has such a profound impact on society... imagine what will happen once I am enlightened.... maybe take over the world??

[granuaile]

I have never known a tom to act like that... One friend told me if her gf wanted her to use something like that she would tell them to find a man. For the most part I have only known some farang to use sex toys. Also I have never known any to treat their gf's like that. Generally they are doting on them.... giving them presents and gifts. There are many tom-dy couples where I just moved and were many where I lived before in Minburi, and nothing like that. I lived with a tomboy for a while and stayed with her...

There is a book if you are interested, by and American anthropologist, Megan Sinnott, titled Toms and Dees - there is more diversity now and more subgroups, but much of it still holds true. I found a copy here at Asia Books, but it was not easy. I agree dys do not consider themselves lesbian, also many toms as well though that seems to be changing... Most here use the label tom-dy-les (for example @Tom Act magazine often uses).... But I would not want a farang style lesbian gf whether she was farang or Thai... In Thailand probably 60% (at least) of my friends are toms, so it is through them that my views are shaped. And after I came here and stayed with a tom for a time, I can understand why even straight women turn to them.

I do agree that sexuality here is far more fluid than many places in the world, I think there is a great deal of bisexuality here.

Just my pov...

But can we agree, if two people love each other (not lust but love) should they not have the same rights as anyone else irregardless of genders?

Mmm.. interesting read, thank you.

I think my perception has been rather tainted by two things.

...

2) I lived in BKK for about 6 years, and during this time I had a room in which a Tom had hher little Dy to play with. Her other Tom mates would come around and they'd water-board, strangle, suffocate the young girl whilst utilising their strap-on or whatever... see some things are clearly audiable, but other would be speculation... that they were water-boarding and performing some sexual acts on the girl was clear...

Anyhow, it made me kinda negative to Thai homosexuals, especially Toms... and it was even more shoking to me that other would just do nothing about it. You could her the girl scream/choke/cry/cum in the corridor. I understand some Thia, so I could clearly hear them tell her to take medicine, and then they would leave her to sleep for a few days. I was sickened and facinated at the same time.

At university, which is where I interact with many people, I have asked girls (and guys) about some of the dynamics behind it. Let us not pretend that the number of non-straight (for the sake of clarity) people is proportional to the rest of the world. I don't know the numbers, but Thailand sure does have many people who are not straight. And it is interesting that almost no Dys regard themselves as lesbian.

About the type-casting... I know it frustrates my friend (from point 1 above), because he has a hard time finding a Thai partner who is not a screaming queen.

Anyhow, you raise some interesting points... but I still think that is a masculine woman and a feminine man get together... eventually they would revert to traditional roles.

If that makes me ignorant, so be it.

If people think that my ignorance has such a profound impact on society... imagine what will happen once I am enlightened.... maybe take over the world??