Gay Activists Call For Same-Sex Marriage Law In Thailand

[Nisa]

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%

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple. I also have no real conviction against or for them marrying but absolutely support any religion who refuses to perform such a ceremony and accept their rights to no recognize such a marriage under the laws of God but do believe they need to recognize it in terms of state laws.

Believing in equal rights properly is not a matter of accepting another person's beliefs or expressions when you agree with them. Anybody can do that. It is a matter of respecting others when you disagree with their expressions, choices or differences. Above all we need to respect the laws of the States or seek legal means of change.

I am also all for people changing themselves to be a "3rd sex" but also support the rights of a company not to hire this person in a position they believe would make their clients uncomfortable. The same is true for an outwardly open Gay or an outwardly open hetrosexual who feels the need to let everyone know their sexual preferences.

[Ulysses G.]

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple.

This is pretty much what I feel also. Give gays all the same rights, but do not call it marriage.

[FOODLOVER]

Equal punishment under the law!

[lanna2011]

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%

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple. I also have no real conviction against or for them marrying but absolutely support any religion who refuses to perform such a ceremony and accept their rights to no recognize such a marriage under the laws of God but do believe they need to recognize it in terms of state laws.

Believing in equal rights properly is not a matter of accepting another person's beliefs or expressions when you agree with them. Anybody can do that. It is a matter of respecting others when you disagree with their expressions, choices or differences. Above all we need to respect the laws of the States or seek legal means of change.

I am also all for people changing themselves to be a "3rd sex" but also support the rights of a company not to hire this person in a position they believe would make their clients uncomfortable. The same is true for an outwardly open Gay or an outwardly open hetrosexual who feels the need to let everyone know their sexual preferences.

well put - my thoughts exactly but I have received abuse for them - welcome to TV I guess! thanks for sharing a balanced viewpoint much better put than my feeble attempt

[FOODLOVER]

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.

Around the world, customs differ, but almost every society shares one thing the concept of gender. Many believe that there are only two: man and woman. But in India, transgender men who cut off their genitals live as women and form a third gender. In Indonesia, hermaphrodite priests lead a society that recognizes five genders. And in rural Albania, women swap one gender for another to gain equality. Sometimes even the most conservative cultures must make room for those who challenge convention. But for many, embracing additional genders is still taboo.

Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/taboo/3610/Overview#ixzz1OBWo4Luq

[Jingthing]

Agree 100%

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple. I also have no real conviction against or for them marrying but absolutely support any religion who refuses to perform such a ceremony and accept their rights to no recognize such a marriage under the laws of God but do believe they need to recognize it in terms of state laws.

That's all well and good, but keep in mind the FACT that in most countries/jurisdictions with "alternative" marriage access for gays that is not called marriage, gays don't have anything CLOSE to the exact same right as the oppressing heterosexuals. If you think over time that this second class citizen/back of the bus shabby treatment is going to be acceptable, you have another thing coming.

[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.

Around the world, customs differ, but almost every society shares one thing the concept of gender. Many believe that there are only two: man and woman. But in India, transgender men who cut off their genitals live as women and form a third gender. In Indonesia, hermaphrodite priests lead a society that recognizes five genders. And in rural Albania, women swap one gender for another to gain equality. Sometimes even the most conservative cultures must make room for those who challenge convention. But for many, embracing additional genders is still taboo.

Read more: http://channel.natio...w#ixzz1OBWo4Luq

I think that the only legitimate 3rd gender is hermaphrodite... now I know this will draw a lot of critisism, so let me highlight- this is my opinion. I am a conservative straight guy, so obviously my perceptions on this topic are formed by my own experience and perspective.

In Africa many cultures practice female circumsision... this doesn't make the practice acceptable to me, as an individual, in my life.

I am from a country which does allow and recognise same-sex marriages, and I am ok with that. I do not support or oppose it, because personally I think it is odd, but the enforce my view on others is also silly. Many things I do or think are not acceptable to others, but I am glad to have the freedom to persue my goals without too many obstacles. In Africa, of course we have an abundance of animal life. It is very interesting to note that in the animal world there is almost no individuality at all. If you are born as a lion, you will act as a lion and your sexuality is determined by the 'lion culture'. Humans are very different in this respect, we are so far removed from our natural state that we have no idea how to truly be human anymore... none of us.

From a legal/administrative point of view, it is much better to allow same sex marriages... and for this reason I support the idea.

Equality is not something I consider as vital to my decission to support same-sex-marriages, because an apple and a banana are not the same. I support it purely from a convenience point of view, it makes things easier to recognise these unions- my personal opinion on homosexuality have nothing to do with it.

PC followers/advocates like to take the moral high ground. To me the PC position is: You are free to think anything you want to, as long as it is PC. That is wrong in my opinion. Even Hitler's supporters should be free to express their opinions...

Of course I speak from an ignorant point of view.:jap:

[FlightRisk]

Actually, the concept of the 3rd Sex is something that dates back a long ways in Thai culture. There is a review of a book on this here (about two-thirds of the way down the page):

http://thailand.wowasis.com/literature/lit_thaipolculhis01.php

I've read that book and found it gives a very interesting insight into the Thai view of the 3rd Sex and its relationship to Bhuddism and their concept of creation.

[samurai]

Agree 100%

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple. I also have no real conviction against or for them marrying but absolutely support any religion who refuses to perform such a ceremony and accept their rights to no recognize such a marriage under the laws of God but do believe they need to recognize it in terms of state laws.

That's all well and good, but keep in mind the FACT that in most countries/jurisdictions with "alternative" marriage access for gays that is not called marriage, gays don't have anything CLOSE to the exact same right as the oppressing heterosexuals. If you think over time that this second class citizen/back of the bus shabby treatment is going to be acceptable, you have another thing coming.

Gay rights, black struggle not the same

One evening last week, I was flipping through the TV channels to find something interesting. I turned to the local Fox affiliate where a scene in a show caught my attention. I would later come to find the scene was from the television series “Glee,” where an effeminate male teenager was being called a faggot by a more masculine male teenager.

An adult male came into the room and defended the teen by asking the masculine male teen, “Do you use the “N” word or call people retarded?”

The masculine teen responded, no.

“Then you should not use the ‘F’ word either,” the adult said (the “F” word being faggot).

As an African American, I am offended at this scene and at homosexuals, in general, who attempt to identify their perceived struggle for equality with the struggle for equality that African Americans have gone through. Let me point out a few of many differences.

• Homosexuals were never enslaved as a population in this country.
  
• African Americans cannot change their race when it is popular or convenient.
  
• The U.S. government never, in effect, condoned the lynching of homosexuals as they once did with African Americans.
  
• The U.S. government never denied homosexuals the right to vote or to own property.
  
• It is undefined as to what makes someone a homosexual. Some say it is the actual experience of engaging in sexual activity with a member of one’s own sex. Others say it’s the desires an individual has for someone of their same sex. It appears if one desired to rob a bank, and never actually did it, it would not make one a bank robber. The U.S. government established guidelines as to what criterion determines one to be an African American.
  

The struggle of African Americans and homosexuals are not the same. People choose to be homosexual; people don’t choose their race or to have a developmental disability. I have spoken to homosexuals and they tell me rather emphatically, “I am what I choose to be sexually,” which is different from race. Sexuality is a free will choice.

I am not homophobic; I do not fear homosexuals, I just wish they would stop attempting to hijack the pain, deaths, suffering and struggles of the African American people in this country.

http://letters.ocregister.com/2010/09/20/gay-rights-black-struggle-not-the-same/

[Jingthing]

That's debatable.

The opposition in the black community to equating gay rights with the civil-rights movement is far from universal. Last week, during the gay-marriage appeals in California, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called for African-Americans to support gay marriage. “To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated,” he said. Julian Bond, chairman emeritus of the NAACP and a veteran of the civil-rights movement, serves on the advisory committee of the group sponsoring the Prop 8 lawsuit. “Disturbingly, African-Americans are more homophobic than others. But it is not a ‘special right’ to be free of discrimination,” he says. While some blacks may be threatened by the perception that the civil-rights movement is being co-opted by white people, Bond says “they should be happy others are imitating the movement they are so proud of.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/14/are-gay-rights-civil-rights.html

[samurai]

That's debatable.

The opposition in the black community to equating gay rights with the civil-rights movement is far from universal. Last week, during the gay-marriage appeals in California, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called for African-Americans to support gay marriage. “To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated,” he said. Julian Bond, chairman emeritus of the NAACP and a veteran of the civil-rights movement, serves on the advisory committee of the group sponsoring the Prop 8 lawsuit. “Disturbingly, African-Americans are more homophobic than others. But it is not a ‘special right’ to be free of discrimination,” he says. While some blacks may be threatened by the perception that the civil-rights movement is being co-opted by white people, Bond says “they should be happy others are imitating the movement they are so proud of.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/14/are-gay-rights-civil-rights.html

For (non-racists) white gays is it probably homophobic if these black people dare to say that their struggle is not the same than the gay marriage issue.

Feminists have argued that marriage is nothing more than slavery for women controlled by men.

A patriarchal structure of oppression and possession. It's a construct of gender roles Two different roles are not seen as "equal".

Those who are pro same-sex marriage probably live or want to live in a relationship where the two partners have different roles. No matter if its one between man and woman or a same sex relationship. Top and bottom it's called in the latter case, right?

Marriage is about rule and subordination, possession and (sexual) restriction and never was really about such silly things as love throughout its history.

Nowadays you don't have to get a permission by the state or a church to live with someone together and it can be your own decision with who you want to live together. Enjoy that freedom.

[jdinasia]

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple.

This is pretty much what I feel also. Give gays all the same rights, but do not call it marriage.

Again -- the label doesn't matter to me ---- but do you really think "separate but equal" is in any way, shape, or form, Equal?

I do agree that churches should not be forced to perform services that they think are incompatible with their beliefs ....

Nisa's other remarks smack of a bit of prejudice in my mind ---- but I guess if Nisa thinks it is also acceptable to not hire blacks because customers might be uncomfortable with it .....

(note- as a business person I hire who I want, based upon what is good for my business --- but I would never have an exclusionary policy of any kind ---- just a policy of who I do include (appropriate dress, behavior, etc --- I would even add gender in there for some jobs but only rarely and usually only to balance a situation )

[lanna2011]

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple.

This is pretty much what I feel also. Give gays all the same rights, but do not call it marriage.

Again -- the label doesn't matter to me ---- but do you really think "separate but equal" is in any way, shape, or form, Equal?

I do agree that churches should not be forced to perform services that they think are incompatible with their beliefs ....

Nisa's other remarks smack of a bit of prejudice in my mind ---- but I guess if Nisa thinks it is also acceptable to not hire blacks because customers might be uncomfortable with it .....

(note- as a business person I hire who I want, based upon what is good for my business --- but I would never have an exclusionary policy of any kind ---- just a policy of who I do include (appropriate dress, behavior, etc --- I would even add gender in there for some jobs but only rarely and usually only to balance a situation )

Your last 'note' is dscriminatory and would be against the law in most places - and is considered 'unequal' in most developed country's - so a pro-discrimination policy in your company is anti-discriminatory to others - based on gender or whatever - so you're not exactly practicing what you preach

[jdinasia]

Your last 'note' is dscriminatory and would be against the law in most places - and is considered 'unequal' in most developed country's - so a pro-discrimination policy in your company is anti-discriminatory to others - based on gender or whatever - so you're not exactly practicing what you preach

Nope ... it isn't In "most places" it is totally legal. It is also totally legal in the US etc. If my team needs a woman for balance it is 100% acceptable for me to have in place an affirmative action plan for that position in "most places" including the US the UK and Oz ... It would not be legal for me to state that ONLY women could apply (it is of course totally legal in Thailand --- which is where I am --- for me to state my preferences for a position in print.) There are a few companies which have had discriminatory hiring policies that must abide by some stronger rules in some places, but since I hire based upon need (my company's need) and ability of the applicant in that order I would be safe anywhere

Thanks for playing such a fun little game -- but you lose

[Ulysses G.]

Again -- the label doesn't matter to me ---- but do you really think separate but equal is in any way, shape, or form, Equal?

If the label does not matter and gay couples get the same rights, why change the traditional definition that has been accepted for thousands of years?

mar·riage/ˈmarij/Noun

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

Edited June 3, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

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?

I would concur with you. I didn't find the story told by the other poster credible. There is a reason that gay women in Thailand avoid the label "lesbian" and that is because of the Sex/porn industry. They associate "lesbian" with sexual behavior for the gratification of men.

Also worth note --- the Tom/Dee scene (derived from the English Tomboy/Lady) is the only visible section of the gay woman's scene in Thailand. There are plenty of what we would call in the USA "lipstick lesbian" couples that you simply would have no way of knowing their sexual identity unless they told you.

Edit --- 3rd sex ---- Not so sure on that label but "second kind of woman" is a standard Thai term.

Edited June 3, 2011 by jdinasia

[lanna2011]

Your last 'note' is dscriminatory and would be against the law in most places - and is considered 'unequal' in most developed country's - so a pro-discrimination policy in your company is anti-discriminatory to others - based on gender or whatever - so you're not exactly practicing what you preach

Nope ... it isn't In "most places" it is totally legal. It is also totally legal in the US etc. If my team needs a woman for balance it is 100% acceptable for me to have in place an affirmative action plan for that position in "most places" including the US the UK and Oz ... It would not be legal for me to state that ONLY women could apply (it is of course totally legal in Thailand --- which is where I am --- for me to state my preferences for a position in print.) There are a few companies which have had discriminatory hiring policies that must abide by some stronger rules in some places, but since I hire based upon need (my company's need) and ability of the applicant in that order I would be safe anywhere

Thanks for playing such a fun little game -- but you lose

wrong again - it's against the law in most developed country's to employ a women based on gender discrimination - you just show what a hypocrite you really are

edit: to include a smug and a condesending that you so love to use

Edited June 3, 2011 by lanna2011

[jdinasia]

Again -- the label doesn't matter to me ---- but do you really think separate but equal is in any way, shape, or form, Equal?

If the label does not matter and gay people are given the same rights, why change the traditional definition that has been accepted for thousands of years?

mar·riage/ˈmarij/Noun

1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

Take a read on Boswell's book if you ever run across it in your place (Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe) --- it will take some of the sting out of the "traditional definition" for you :)I could suggest some other readings as well ... but it would open a whole new can of worms

It doesn't matter to me .... then again with 8+ years in this relationship I have no need for any secular approval and we both have wills and living wills ....

Merriam Webster -----

Definition of MARRIAGE

1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlockc : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

about.com

Definition: A question we often receive is "What is marriage?" In order to define marriage, you need to look at not only the historical period, but also on the geographical location and the cultural traditions of the individuals involved in the marriage relationship.A general definition of marriage is that it is a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

Being married also gives legitimacy to sexual relations within the marriage.

[Ulysses G.]

Take a read on Boswell's book if you ever run across it in your place (Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe) --- it will take some of the sting out of the "traditional definition" for you

Here is an interesting review on his book that you might want to read. I do not agree with all of it, but despite the Christian slant, IMHO she makes some valid points.

Like bogus Marxist, feminist and black histories, "homosexual" histories such as Boswell's are intent on "politics," and these scholastic works have become instruments in the struggle for influence and right of citizenship. What they are intent upon toppling, however, is the whole code of ethics and morality of Christian Civilization.

The veritable media blitz today in favor of homosexuality is an attempt to wear down all opposition, all barriers of healthy horror and rejection to what Boswell derisively terms "the unmentionable sin." In the name of tolerance, legislation is being introduced to permit homosexual marriages, symbolic of a cultural and spiritual transformation of the country, and an end of culture and civilization as we know it.

Any objective medieval historian cannot be oblivious to the serious flaws in Boswell's work. But because of the "politically correct" tyranny of the gay rights movement on campuses, the Yale professor's work is barely challenged.

Books like Boswell's are just plain "bad" history, in every sense of the word. And the practice of bad history is even more dangerous than the practice of bad medicine, because its poison seeps into the very soul of Christian Civilization.

http://www.tradition...2br_SameSex.htm

Edited June 3, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[ginjag]

Agree 100%

I believe homosexual couples should be able to enter into civil unions, that are just as hard to get out of as a marriage, which affords them the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple. I also have no real conviction against or for them marrying but absolutely support any religion who refuses to perform such a ceremony and accept their rights to no recognize such a marriage under the laws of God but do believe they need to recognize it in terms of state laws.

That's all well and good, but keep in mind the FACT that in most countries/jurisdictions with "alternative" marriage access for gays that is not called marriage, gays don't have anything CLOSE to the exact same right as the oppressing heterosexuals. If you think over time that this second class citizen/back of the bus shabby treatment is going to be acceptable, you have another thing coming.

Gay rights, black struggle not the same

One evening last week, I was flipping through the TV channels to find something interesting. I turned to the local Fox affiliate where a scene in a show caught my attention. I would later come to find the scene was from the television series "Glee," where an effeminate male teenager was being called a faggot by a more masculine male teenager.

An adult male came into the room and defended the teen by asking the masculine male teen, "Do you use the "N" word or call people retarded?"

The masculine teen responded, no.

"Then you should not use the 'F' word either," the adult said (the "F" word being faggot).

As an African American, I am offended at this scene and at homosexuals, in general, who attempt to identify their perceived struggle for equality with the struggle for equality that African Americans have gone through. Let me point out a few of many differences.

• Homosexuals were never enslaved as a population in this country.
• African Americans cannot change their race when it is popular or convenient.
• The U.S. government never, in effect, condoned the lynching of homosexuals as they once did with African Americans.
• The U.S. government never denied homosexuals the right to vote or to own property.
• It is undefined as to what makes someone a homosexual. Some say it is the actual experience of engaging in sexual activity with a member of one's own sex. Others say it's the desires an individual has for someone of their same sex. It appears if one desired to rob a bank, and never actually did it, it would not make one a bank robber. The U.S. government established guidelines as to what criterion determines one to be an African American.

The struggle of African Americans and homosexuals are not the same. People choose to be homosexual; people don't choose their race or to have a developmental disability. I have spoken to homosexuals and they tell me rather emphatically, "I am what I choose to be sexually," which is different from race. Sexuality is a free will choice.

I am not homophobic; I do not fear homosexuals, I just wish they would stop attempting to hijack the pain, deaths, suffering and struggles of the African American people in this country.

http://letters.ocreg...e-not-the-same/

Get your point about a few things BUT quote.. People choose to be homosexual WHAT..... it’s the desires an individual has for someone of their same sex.In other words it would come natural for Her or Him from an early age-and this differs.....I agree with Nisa on most points. The only thing in this world that is annoying is when a person pushes their own feelings/ sexual into the faces of people who don't want it. The same as employing you cannot afford to hire a person to show off their sexual feelings (over the top). I think more people would be more tolerant if what you do in bed and with who--keep it private-as it should be, it's not other peoples business. It is similar to these modern times when you hear of a person complain when they have wronged-""you only have fired me because I am ++++++ this is getting to be normal, many jump on the bandwagon to get compo.If you are a minority anywhere-Do not rock the boat too much.

[jdinasia]

wrong again - it's against the law in most developed country's to employ a women based on gender discrimination - you just show what a hypocrite you really are

edit: to include a smug and a condesending that you so love to use

I can only assume that not only have you never worked in HR, that you have also never been the person to do the hiring. It is totally legal to hire the right person for the position in light of the current make-up of a team etc ----

Hiring on an inclusory basis (an affirmative action plan) for balance in the workplace is acceptable practice. "We need a woman's viewpoint on the team" is fine .... in almost all workplace decisions.

One of the most common things I do when I take over the management of an existing company is create a more diverse work place ....

BTW -- I do notice that you have now changed you goalpost from "in most places" to "in most developed country's (sic)", but that still wouldn't be true. A company policy to exclude people based upon certain criteria (that policy being de facto or written) would be illegal in many places in most developed nations (not all and certainly not in most of the world ) ... a decision to favor someone based upon diversity goals or the need for balance is entirely legal. (again in most places)

Still a fun little game and you still lose

edit --- BTW in much of the developed world it is acceptable to even suggest a preference if you do it correctly. It would be acceptable to include something like ....

"JDCO is an equal opportunity employer which is actively striving for a diverse workforce and actively recruits women and minorities" as part of an advertisement

2nd edit

Politics

Bosses can lawfully hire a woman over a man with same qualifications for first time

Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said.

http://www.telegraph...first-time.html

3rd edit --- Businessweek

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_47/b3708145.htm

Edited June 3, 2011 by jdinasia

[lanna2011]

wrong again - it's against the law in most developed country's to employ a women based on gender discrimination - you just show what a hypocrite you really are

edit: to include a smug and a condesending that you so love to use

I can only assume that not only have you never worked in HR, that you have also never been the person to do the hiring. It is totally legal to hire the right person for the position in light of the current make-up of a team etc ----

Hiring on an inclusory basis (an affirmative action plan) for balance in the workplace is acceptable practice. "We need a woman's viewpoint on the team" is fine .... in almost all workplace decisions.

One of the most common things I do when I take over the management of an existing company is create a more diverse work place ....

BTW -- I do notice that you have now changed you goalpost from "in most places" to "in most developed country's (sic)", but that still wouldn't be true. A company policy to exclude people based upon certain criteria (that policy being de facto or written) would be illegal in many places in most developed nations (not all and certainly not in most of the world ) ... a decision to favor someone based upon diversity goals or the need for balance is entirely legal. (again in most places)

Still a fun little game and you still lose

edit --- BTW in much of the developed world it is acceptable to even suggest a preference if you do it correctly. It would be acceptable to include something like ....

"JDCO is an equal opportunity employer which is actively striving for a diverse workforce and actively recruits women and minorities" as part of an advertisement

2nd edit

Politics

Bosses can lawfully hire a woman over a man with same qualifications for first time

Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said.

http://www.telegraph...first-time.html

indeed I have - at a very senior position and you are wrong:

It is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their gender. Employers should ensure they have policies in place which are designed to prevent discrimination in:

• recruitment and selection
• determining pay
• training and development
• selection for promotion
• discipline and grievances
• countering bullying and harassment.

source: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1814

[jdinasia]

I can only assume that not only have you never worked in HR, that you have also never been the person to do the hiring. It is totally legal to hire the right person for the position in light of the current make-up of a team etc ----

Hiring on an inclusory basis (an affirmative action plan) for balance in the workplace is acceptable practice. "We need a woman's viewpoint on the team" is fine .... in almost all workplace decisions.

One of the most common things I do when I take over the management of an existing company is create a more diverse work place ....

BTW -- I do notice that you have now changed you goalpost from "in most places" to "in most developed country's (sic)", but that still wouldn't be true. A company policy to exclude people based upon certain criteria (that policy being de facto or written) would be illegal in many places in most developed nations (not all and certainly not in most of the world ) ... a decision to favor someone based upon diversity goals or the need for balance is entirely legal. (again in most places)

Still a fun little game and you still lose

edit --- BTW in much of the developed world it is acceptable to even suggest a preference if you do it correctly. It would be acceptable to include something like ....

"JDCO is an equal opportunity employer which is actively striving for a diverse workforce and actively recruits women and minorities" as part of an advertisement

2nd edit

Politics

Bosses can lawfully hire a woman over a man with same qualifications for first time

Men with the same qualifications as women can be lawfully rejected from jobs in favour of female rivals for the first time, ministers have said.

http://www.telegraph...first-time.html

indeed I have - at a very senior position and you are wrong:

It is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their gender. Employers should ensure they have policies in place which are designed to prevent discrimination in:

• recruitment and selection
• determining pay
• training and development
• selection for promotion
• discipline and grievances
• countering bullying and harassment.

source: http://www.acas.org....?articleid=1814

Please note --- even though it is fun --- ACAS would not tell you it is wrong in the situation described by me Now that even in your national government it is acceptable to hire a woman over an equally qualified man based solely on her gender is affirmative action (at its worst --- since the new regulations do not require the necessity of correcting an imbalance or hiring for balance

Again -- if the policy (de facto or de jure) is discriminatory is is wrong --- to hire for a specific position for a purpose in mind of balancing a workforce etc is entirely legal. Next you will tell me I can't decide to hire only women as wet-nurses

[Nisa]

Am I alone in thinking jdinasia's attitude on this subject probably pushes more people away from wanting to actively support gay rights than gets anyone to coming around to his militant view? If he actually represented the views of the majority of gay people than I would care less about being a vocal supporter of Gay Rights ... not my problem.

[samurai]

He plays "debate" to win "arguments" in the interwebs.

You can come across such people to almost every topic. It isn't something specific gay.

Edited June 3, 2011 by samurai

[jdinasia]

Am I alone in thinking jdinasia's attitude on this subject probably pushes more people away from wanting to actively support gay rights than gets anyone to coming around to his militant view? If he actually represented the views of the majority of gay people than I would care less about being a vocal supporter of Gay Rights ... not my problem.

Ouch!

oh wait .. I meant LOL

It's OK .. you can support what your conscience tells you to .... I'll still support women's rights issues even though I know some that are Bit&^% Women's rights are "not my problem" either --- except they are human rights ... and Human rights are everyone's problem

BTW -- I am not trying to get anyone to come around ... and my view isn't "militant" though your use of that terminology is telling.

On the topic --- It's simple, not complicated, you either think that all people deserve to be treated equally or not. Personally I would be happy enough with civil unions that protected true equality.. On the topic --- marriage itself is a word --- but let's get real, we all know that "separate but equal" fails to provide equality. For me it doesn't matter which word you use, but those that want REAL equality don't think that you need to play a game with language to do it. Same= Same ... not Same Same But Different

Maybe this will help --- some wise woman said it .....

Believing in equal rights properly is not a matter of accepting another person's beliefs or expressions when you agree with them. Anybody can do that. It is a matter of respecting others when you disagree with their expressions, choices or differences. Above all we need to respect the laws of the States or seek legal means of change.

I assume that you might disagree with my expressions or choices ..... I'll defend your right to do so

I know I disagree with many people's. I even respect a bigot's right to be a bigot. (and my choice not to hire him or her )

[Nisa]

Nisa's other remarks smack of a bit of prejudice in my mind ---- but I guess if Nisa thinks it is also acceptable to not hire blacks because customers might be uncomfortable with it .....

My comments was VERY CLEAR that it applied to one's behavior regardless if being a hetrosexual or homosexual. Your response is very telling in terms of your credibility.

As for comparing Gays to Blacks. It is fair to a certain degree but ... I think we need to wait to do this until their is actually proof that their is a "gay gene" which of course scientists have been unable to uncover to this point. However, even if there was a gay gene, ones sexual preference is not a physical characteristic that needs to be apparent to everyone. If you feel a need to let a bus driver know your sexual preferences and turn-ons before getting on a bus or while applying for a job then you have more issues to be concerned with than being gay. Needing to advertise your gayness in a job interview is similar to needing to go to an interview advertising your political beliefs or need to have multi colored dyed hair and face piercings. Some jobs these things may not matter but others they certainly do. The same is true about a married man (or women) who feels the need to cheat on their spouse ... there is just no need to advertise this to others during a business meeting or job interview ... it shows a lack of restraint and basic common sense and/or priorities.

Personally, I could care less if people are born gay or not and could care less about people's sexual preferences, as long as the don't infringe on the rights of others, be it the same sex or being in love with an iPod or sex doll or if they want to be a polygamist. I am all for supporting people's rights to be happy but could care less about somebody's happiness who spits in the face of others because others, who support the same cause, are not as militant and intolerable to others opinions as they are in their views.

[Nisa]

JD - a word you like to throw around a lot is "bigot"

I suggest you look in the mirror before continuing to label others as a bigot.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

[jdinasia]

Here is an interesting review on his book that you might want to read. I do not agree with all of it, but despite the Christian slant, IMHO she makes some valid points.

Like bogus Marxist, feminist and black histories, "homosexual" histories such as Boswell's are intent on "politics," and these scholastic works have become instruments in the struggle for influence and right of citizenship. What they are intent upon toppling, however, is the whole code of ethics and morality of Christian Civilization.

The veritable media blitz today in favor of homosexuality is an attempt to wear down all opposition, all barriers of healthy horror and rejection to what Boswell derisively terms "the unmentionable sin." In the name of tolerance, legislation is being introduced to permit homosexual marriages, symbolic of a cultural and spiritual transformation of the country, and an end of culture and civilization as we know it.

Any objective medieval historian cannot be oblivious to the serious flaws in Boswell's work. But because of the "politically correct" tyranny of the gay rights movement on campuses, the Yale professor's work is barely challenged.

Books like Boswell's are just plain "bad" history, in every sense of the word. And the practice of bad history is even more dangerous than the practice of bad medicine, because its poison seeps into the very soul of Christian Civilization.

http://www.tradition...2br_SameSex.htm

A much less biased (but still biased in favor of Boswell's book is this review http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-bennison.html ---- Note the source of the review ---- Anglican Theological Review --- not some left-wing Ivy-league college

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. By John Boswell. New York: Villard Books, 1994, 412 pp. N.p. (cloth). Bennison, Charles, Book reviews.., Vol. 77, Anglican Theological Review, 04-01-1995, pp 256.

To have met John Boswell, the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale, whose premature death late last year is an ineffable tragedy for both the academy and the church, was to have come into the presence of a brilliant, learned, engaging, talkative, and insistent man. In his Sam-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, the much-anticipated and long- awaited sequel to his award-winning Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980), Professor Boswell has left as his principal legacy a brilliant, learned, engaging, talkative, and insistent argument that the ancient and medieval church celebrated the same-sex equivalent of its heterosexual marriage ceremony.

One would not absolutely have to be gay to write this book, but it certainly helped. Boswell was gay--indeed, the first openly gay individual to be granted tenure at an ivy league university. While asserting that "it is not the province of the historian to direct the actions of future human beings, but only to reflect accurately on those of the past," the historical reality he in this book is able to construct is advantaged by his social location in a nation and church embroiled in a culture war over the issue of the normative status of homosexuality. In the face of "the psychological landscape of the modern West," which he describes as obsessed with romantic love, "causally interrelated and largely coterminous" with heterosexual marriage, and as filled with "a salient horror of homosexuality," he comes down on the opposite side of the "epistemological divide" among those for whom "it is relatively easy to recognize and absorb ideas about a ceremony of same-sex union, because they have a place to locate the information"

I have read that before --- and there are at least 2 facts in it that I agree with! Why he wrote it .... and that it won the American Book Award for History in 1981!

This book, which Boswell admitted was written to prove there was acceptance of homosexuality in the Western Catholic tradition from the beginning of the Christian era until the 14th century, won the American Book Award for History in 1981.

From the homepage of the website you posted from ---- Hard to criticize a book with an agenda --- if your criticism is based on --- an agenda!

ABOUT US

Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances.

[Nisa]

BTW -- I am not trying to get anyone to come around ... and my view isn't "militant" though your use of that terminology is telling.

mil·i·tant

/ˈmilətənt/

Adjective:

Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause

What are your motivations if not to sway people into supporting your views of equal rights regarding homosexuals?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Nisa