Do You Support Legalization Of Same Sex Marriage In Thailand?

[JUDAS]

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home/bedroom is none of my business. I have no objection to civil marriage/partnership but, I will say that I feel the IDEAL environment for a child to be raised is within the context of a "traditional family", whatever that may be these days.

[saraburioz]

Definitely Christian. Lol.

Seriously hope one if your kids turns out to be gay.

What's funny about Christians? I detest organized religions, even Buddhism.

Why do you wish me ill - what have I done to you? If any of my sons turn out to be gay, I'll not be upset, i'll recognise it for what it is.

[jdinasia]

Why would someone want to do that ....

now about those "studies" you say exist? ...... I am betting I can outpace you study by study that says homosexuality is a natural variant in humans and many other animals

But I am glad to know that you never ever ever do anything "unnatural", in fact beyond the vague idea of BJ's I bet you never ever ever wore both cotton and wool at the same time

BTW --- I null voted as the terminology is unimportant ....

I have nothing against homosexuals. i would defend to the death your right to be gay and that you be free of persecution by anyone, but I also defend my right to say that I don't believe that homosexuality is normal and I don't want that falsehood taught to my child in school.

Again ... "studies"? Where are these medical studies you say exist? When were they conducted (in the 1940's/50's?)

I don't care what you believe, you have every right to hold a backward/bigoted view ---- I just don't want your falsehood taught anywhere You are free, as all parents are, to teach your children just about anything even if it is wrong. However, I am still waiting on these "medical studies" ....

---- I remember you getting caught out on a remark about SJ's wife being from Isaan .... and now this?

[manarak]

Complicated question.

I voted for the partnership.

My opinion is that the institution of marriage exists between a man and a woman mainly to obtain advantages in daily life and simplification of family matters and transmission on wealth/inheritance. It also provides a structure and legal framework within which to raise children.

I suppose there wouldn't be such an institution if children weren't born as a consequence of sex between the stronger sex (that hunts and brings food) and the weaker sex (which gets pregnant and unable to do any work for some time).

There is also the question whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Both questions need to be considered in my opinion.

And as a third factor there probably also is the envy of some gay couples to "officialize" their love by being able to shout out to the world "LOOK! we are married!"

My opinion on the matter is:

- marriage is an institution which main benefit to society is raising children in a stable environment

- I didn't research the matter enough, therefore I am not sure if 2 gay men can raise children as well as a married hetero couple. Depending of what the specialists say, gay couples should be allowed or not to raise children.

- If gay couples are allowed to raise children, they should be able to enjoy the same advantages as hetero couples.

This also means that if 2 gay men are not allowed to raise children, I do not see a reason that they should enjoy the same advantages, which were designed to help families to raise their children.

Edited May 31, 2011 by manarak

[Richard4849]

I don't wish you ill, as I don't consider having a gay child "ill". I think it might bring a much-needed new perspective to your frankly radical views.

So how'd you end up in the gayest country on earth, anyway? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable in Iran or Saudi, where you wouldn't have be subjected to so many mentally ill people on a daily basis?

[jdinasia]

Definitely Christian. Lol.

Seriously hope one if your kids turns out to be gay.

What's funny about Christians? I detest organized religions, even Buddhism.

Why do you wish me ill - what have I done to you? If any of my sons turn out to be gay, I'll not be upset, i'll recognise it for what it is.

Obviously if one of your kids turns out gay (and thus not normal and unworthy to marry and of course, never be allowed to have children ... oh wait .....) it will be your fault However, I think Richard was wishing you luck .. a chance to come out of the 1950's closet so-to-speak.

Edited May 31, 2011 by jdinasia

[saraburioz]

I don't wish you ill, as I don't consider having a gay child "ill". I think it might bring a much-needed new perspective to your frankly radical views.

So how'd you end up in the gayest country on earth, anyway? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable in Iran or Saudi, where you wouldn't have be subjected to so many mentally ill people on a daily basis?

Now you confuse me - would you want your kids to be gay?

Again, why do you think gays bother me? They don't.

[jdinasia]

Complicated question.

I voted for the partnership.

My opinion is that the institution of marriage exists between a man and a woman mainly to obtain advantages in daily life and simplification of family matters and transmission on wealth/inheritance. It also provides a structure and legal framework within which to raise children.

I suppose there wouldn't be such an institution if children weren't born as a consequence of sex between the stronger sex (that hunts and brings food) and the weaker sex (which gets pregnant and unable to do any work for some time).

There is also the question whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Both questions need to be considered in my opinion.

And as a third factor there probably also is the envy of some gay couples to "officialize" their love by being able to shout out to the world "LOOK! we are married!"

My opinion on the matter is:

- marriage is an institution which main benefit to society is raising children in a stable environment

- I didn't research the matter enough, therefore I am not sure if 2 gay men can raise children as well as a married hetero couple. Depending of what the specialists say, gay couples should be allowed or not to raise children.

- If gay couples are allowed to raise children, they should be able to enjoy the same advantages as hetero couples.

This also means that if 2 gay men are not allowed to raise children, I do not see a reason that they should enjoy the same advantages, which were designed to help families to raise their children.

Let's focus on your very last statement ------ though the topic is NOT about children. Should (with your line of reasoning) men and women be allowed to marry if they have no intention of having children, or are medically incapable of having children?

Then we could talk about lesbian couples ... often one or both of whom had children in the past ... ending up having custody of those children from previous marriages .... There is one member here who has many adult children, and he is gay. What about him and his situation?

(BTW --- there are studies that state that children with same-sex partners as parents not only are well adjusted, but are also no more likely to be gay than the average sample of children Yes, I can look those studies up if you like

[Richard4849]

I want my kids to be whatever makes them happy. In the end, they're not going to give a toss what their parents "want" or think, anyway.

[Beetlejuice]

Same sex marriages go against the whole concept of the institution of marriage, the joining of a couple a male to a female with the emphasis of baring children to continue on the family line.

No child should be placed into a situation where it has 2 guardians of the same sex. It is not normal, it`s not natural and it`s a twisted deviation against the laws of nature.

Even those that argue it is not natural for humans to be paired for life, either in marriage or as a partnership, that is fine providing there are no children involved who would be denied a natural family upbringing of having a mother, father, grandparents and perhaps siblings.

To me this whole farce of same sex marriages is just a sick and perverted joke that should be banned, if only just for the long suffering children's sakes, who are brought into this world having no control on their enviroments.

At the end of the day it will be the children that are on the receiving end of any ridicule caused by these relationships.

Even if a married couple cannot have children, they can still adopt and if the same applies to same sex couples then this is wrong.

I will not be voting in that ridiculous poll.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Beetlejuice

[Richard4849]

Victorian morals are alive and well, I see.

In any case, we're talking about whether or not there should be gay marriage in Thailand -- and I can't imagine foreigners' opinions having any bearing whatsoever.

This is solely for the Thais to decide for themselves.

Agreed?

[JUDAS]

I see PeaceBlondie here. Hope you are on the road to full recovery.

[Richard4849]

ALL kids are ridiculed about something regarding their parents.

You're mom's a fat cow.

Your dad's broke.

Your mom puts crappy food in your lunch box.

Your dad's a drunk.

Your mom's got fuzz on her upper lip.

Your dad drives a beat-up car.

Your parents are divorced and your mom sleeps around.

Being ridiculed us universal and part of growing up. Happens to everyone for some reason or another, and fear if "ridicule" is no reason not to allow same-sex couples the right to raise kids if they want to.

Solid gay parents are better parents than lousy straight parents, and I don't see anyone trying to advocate lousy parents being neutered.

[manarak]

Complicated question.

I voted for the partnership.

My opinion is that the institution of marriage exists between a man and a woman mainly to obtain advantages in daily life and simplification of family matters and transmission on wealth/inheritance. It also provides a structure and legal framework within which to raise children.

I suppose there wouldn't be such an institution if children weren't born as a consequence of sex between the stronger sex (that hunts and brings food) and the weaker sex (which gets pregnant and unable to do any work for some time).

There is also the question whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Both questions need to be considered in my opinion.

And as a third factor there probably also is the envy of some gay couples to "officialize" their love by being able to shout out to the world "LOOK! we are married!"

My opinion on the matter is:

- marriage is an institution which main benefit to society is raising children in a stable environment

- I didn't research the matter enough, therefore I am not sure if 2 gay men can raise children as well as a married hetero couple. Depending of what the specialists say, gay couples should be allowed or not to raise children.

- If gay couples are allowed to raise children, they should be able to enjoy the same advantages as hetero couples.

This also means that if 2 gay men are not allowed to raise children, I do not see a reason that they should enjoy the same advantages, which were designed to help families to raise their children.

Let's focus on your very last statement ------ though the topic is NOT about children. Should (with your line of reasoning) men and women be allowed to marry if they have no intention of having children, or are medically incapable of having children?

Then we could talk about lesbian couples ... often one or both of whom had children in the past ... ending up having custody of those children from previous marriages .... There is one member here who has many adult children, and he is gay. What about him and his situation?

(BTW --- there are studies that state that children with same-sex partners as parents not only are well adjusted, but are also no more likely to be gay than the average sample of children Yes, I can look those studies up if you like

One legal principle is that rights should not be taken away once they have been granted.

In older times, people who would marry had the goal of procreation.

So the right for hetero couples to marry has historical reasons, and the right cannot be taken away easily. Also, I believe it gives the woman some safety, guarantee if she is married when the children come. some sort of insurance that the man will support her. Obviously, this is not needed for gays.

Lesbian couples are homosexuals, same as gay men.

If a lesbian or a gay has been awarded the custody of a child, IMO the same principle as above should apply, it cannot be taken away easily, so the situation stays as it is, unless a clear danger for the child can be demonstrated.

The person with the custody rights should enjoy the fiscal/practical advantages (whatever they might be) for raising the child - I don't see why a new same-sex partner should be associated with it (just my opinion).

About the studies, thank you for the input, it would probably be useful to post the links, as well as any links to contradictory studies (if there are any).

How much "more likely" are the children to be gay?

And... what does "well adjusted" mean in this context?

Edited May 31, 2011 by manarak

[SteeleJoe]

Thanks to but a couple folks, this thread is just too creepy...and depressing as f*^k...

[manarak]

...this thread is just too creepy...and depressing as f*^k...

why is that?

[samurai]

Victorian morals are alive and well, I see.

Yes, marriage is an old Victorian and outdated institution. It limits our freedom.

Marriage is also not a natural thing.

Why support it?

[jdinasia]

One legal principle is that rights should not be taken away once they have been granted.

In older times, people who would marry had the goal of procreation.

So the right for hetero couples to marry has historical reasons, and the right cannot be taken away easily. Also, I believe it gives the woman some safety, guarantee if she is married when the children come. some sort of insurance that the man will support her. Obviously, this is not needed for gays.

Lesbian couples are homosexuals, same as gay men.

If a lesbian or a gay has been awarded the custody of a child, IMO the same principle as above should apply, it cannot be taken away easily, so the situation stays as it is, unless a clear danger for the child can be demonstrated.

The person with the custody rights should enjoy the fiscal/practical advantages (whatever they might be) for raising the child - I don't see why a new same-sex partner should be associated with it (just my opinion).

About the studies, thank you for the input, it would probably be useful to post the links, as well as any links to contradictory studies (if there are any).

How much "more likely" are the children to be gay?

And... what does "well adjusted" mean in this context?

Sorry ... the "historical legal principle doesn't hold up" Nor does marraige for procreation as there are historically societal groups which do not/did not practice the same. In fact there are instances of communal living societies where the men live separately from the women, and there are groups where all the women in the tribe raised all the children communally.

What you are relying on is an argument of modern tradition and by that tradition the sole right of men to vote has been taken away ... etc etc etc ... and by nature that means it is changed from older traditions.

You can find my link above to Boswell's book, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-bennison.html citing that gay unions were performed (even inside the Christian church) ages and ages ago .... (note the reviewer clearly states the shortcomings in Boswell's work)

http://pluralsg.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids/

Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement

Canadian Psychological Association

In 2003, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) issued its response to public debate about

the effect of marriage of same-sex couples on children. CPA’s review of the psychological

research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of

heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and

their gender identity. In 2005, the CPA voiced its support to the House of Commons of Bill C-38,

legislation legalizing marriage of same-sex couples http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf

The Australian Psychological Society

Many findings of no differences between groups of children on various measures in some way related

to gender and gendered-behaviour have been reported (e.g., Brewaeys et al., 1997; see reviews by

Kershaw, 2000; McNair, 2004; Tasker, 2005). However, some differences have been found between

children parented by same-sex parents and those parented by heterosexual parents that indicate

potentially favourable or advantageous differences for the former. In general, the theme of these

differences is to be less rigidly sex-typed than children who live with heterosexual parents. Researchers

have found the sons of lesbian women in their samples to be more self-aware, more adept at

communicating their feelings, more sensitive to others, more thoughtful and measured, less physically

aggressive, less ‘sex-typed’ in their choice of toys and games, and to exhibit more empathy for people

than the comparative groups of sons of heterosexual parents (Brewaeys et al., 1997; Drexler & Gross,

2005; Green et al., 1986; Sarantakos, 1996; Vanfraussen et al., 2002). Drexler, who has compared

boys raised by lesbian couples and boys raised by hetereosexual couples, has reported differences

along these lines, and particularly, that boys of lesbian mothers demonstrate relatively higher levels

of sensitivity and relationship orientation than do boys who are parented by a male/female couple

(Drexler, 2002; Drexler & Gross, 2005). In the UK study comparing ‘father-present’ and ‘father-absent’

families (n=101 families), early adolescent boys who had been raised from infancy by mothers only

(either single heterosexual or lesbian women, or female couples) were found to rate themselves at the

same level on a scale of ‘masculinity’ as did boys who had a father, and more highly on the ‘femininity’

items (MacCallum & Golombok, 2004).

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

Finally an Amicus brief by the top groups in Psych work in the US --- (amicus briefs --- are "friends of the court" papers --- this one is in support of gay parenting in a legal challenge in California ...

BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,

THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,

THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AND

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

Note ---- all of these links provide further information that someone (like saraburi) who wants to be informed can look into ... (the names of individuals studies etc...

[jdinasia]

Thanks to but a couple folks, this thread is just too creepy...and depressing as f*^k...

My last post should help --- it shows not only is the world changing --- it is changing for the better socially ...

Remember this forum does have a preponderance of OWM --- and the whole "change" thing challenges the average OWM (I assume you fit that category SJ --- but not the stereotype --- forgive me if I am wrong about the pigeon hole I put you in

[Richard4849]

Victorian morals are alive and well, I see.

Yes, marriage is an old Victorian and outdated institution. It limits our freedom.

Marriage is also not a natural thing.

Why support it?

I don't "support" it one way or another.

What I support is adult human's basic right to participate in it if they want -- or not.

Personally, I see little point -- like the millions of Thais who live together in common-law relationships but never register their union.

Do it if you want, don't if you want. But don't go around trying to limit what other people can and can't do based on your own biases.

[SteeleJoe]

...this thread is just too creepy...and depressing as f*^k...

why is that?

If I have to explain, then perhaps it's just me. But I get pretty creeped out by people who have the sort of mindset that produces comments like, "homosexuality) is a twisted deviation against the laws of nature...this whole farce of same sex marriages is just a sick and perverted joke..." and recommend websites of the Traditional Values Coalition (or even books by Charles Socarides).

And it depresses me when I'm reminded of how in fact there plenty of people out there who still have these mindsets. I try not to judge them -- or even say they are wrong. But I can't help it -- it creeps me out and depresses me.

Like I say -- maybe that's just my own issue.

[Gaccha]

Medical studies reveal that it is a 'disorder'.

Please show a source. (For even one of these studies.)

Thank you.

Saraburioz is unwittingly right on the money, but his shallow reflection on this subject allows him to be a victim of a medical regime. He is right to say medical studies 'reveal' it to be a disorder (he got the scare quotes the wrong way round). The Messianic vocabulary of 'reveal' is exactly what happens. Allow me to explain.

1. Science (and hence medicine) are privileged as the font of Truth (note the unquestioning capital T)

2. the social forces enact disciplining measures to ensure a narrow path of the docile, submissive subject for the neo-liberal capitalist nation-state

3. medicine is the ultimate tool to define and then abnormalise acts outside of this narrow path

4. the various states of gayness are rendered abnormal and medicalised

There is no Truth. Just moments where through a nexus of power and knowledge certain ideas become dominant. Currently ideas that legtimise the docile family man are marked as the most desirable as they assist in the production of wealth. The psychiatric area of medicine is the ultimate touch point for the sanctioning and desanctioning of individuals' behaviours. Medicine gets to decide if you are right or wrong. It depends for this on a society that fetishes a broad truth regime called 'science'.

For an extraordinary analysis of the way certain viewpoints emerged (while, as it happens, others did not) in the cauldron of medical regime verbiage, take a look at Foucault's The Birth of the Clinic and the History of Sexuality Volume 1. Both these works are regarded as some of the greatest works of the last 50 years. By way of contrast, the work Mr Saraburioz recommends is not even a classic in its own lunchtime.

Case dismissed.

[happyrobert]

Medical studies reveal that it is a 'disorder'.

Please show a source. (For even one of these studies.)

Thank you.

....There is no Truth....

So, uhm, you're lying?

Edited May 31, 2011 by happyrobert

[Gaccha]

Medical studies reveal that it is a 'disorder'.

Please show a source. (For even one of these studies.)

Thank you.

....There is no Truth....

So, uhm, you're lying?

If there is no foundational Truth (note the capital T) then how can it be a lie?

What I am saying is the truth.

This is perhaps not the forum to explain this. It is **staggeringly complex** but you need to look at the epistemological arguments made by Wilfred Sellars and Wittgenstein's argument of 'hinges'. These books are not books that can be read at the departure lounge at Swampy.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Gaccha

[samurai]

Complicated question.

I voted for the partnership.

My opinion is that the institution of marriage exists between a man and a woman mainly to obtain advantages in daily life and simplification of family matters and transmission on wealth/inheritance. It also provides a structure and legal framework within which to raise children.

I suppose there wouldn't be such an institution if children weren't born as a consequence of sex between the stronger sex (that hunts and brings food) and the weaker sex (which gets pregnant and unable to do any work for some time).

Marriage is oppression.

For that reason good feminists like me are against it.

[manarak]

...this thread is just too creepy...and depressing as f*^k...

why is that?

If I have to explain, then perhaps it's just me. But I get pretty creeped out by people who have the sort of mindset that produces comments like, "homosexuality) is a twisted deviation against the laws of nature...this whole farce of same sex marriages is just a sick and perverted joke..." and recommend websites of the Traditional Values Coalition (or even books by Charles Socarides).

And it depresses me when I'm reminded of how in fact there plenty of people out there who still have these mindsets. I try not to judge them -- or even say they are wrong. But I can't help it -- it creeps me out and depresses me.

Like I say -- maybe that's just my own issue.

Well, it depends how you handle them.

I just ignore them.

But I also acknowledge homosexuality as abnormal (with the meaning that homosexuals do not make the core 66% of a normally distributed population).

That they can be considered "disturbed" by medical studies does not bother me, and it carries no significance. A deaf can compose great music.

If you think about it, only abnormal people are able to deliver exceptional performance.

Normality is the very definition of mediocrity.

[travelmann]

Yes, they should be able to marry. Only the bible thumpers want to stop it.

I'm fairly certain that when the existing case gets to the US Suprime Court it will be allow. Equal rights is equal rights, no if ands or buts.

Lets not forget the Koran Krunchers too then!!

[roamer]

"epistemological" ? "Wittgenstein" ?

I must have gone to the wrong forum

[gregb]

I couldn't decide, so I just didn't vote. I have no problem with the concept of marriage for gay couples, but it creates too many legal headaches for me to just say "go for it". Would we see a rash of straight men "marrying" Thai men because now they don't need to show money to get a visa? Also, citizenship is easier for the female side of a Thai/foreign couple. How do you decide which "man" qualifies for that position? The situation is just too ripe for abuse. I don't want to say no, because there is no valid reason to reject it, but the legal issues simply can't be ignored. And what is marriage if not a legal contract? So maybe the domestic partnership is the only way to go. Basically a subset of benefits that grants only those privileges where there is no conflict in Thai law resulting from differentiation between the sexes.

On the concept of raising children by gay couples, I draw the line there. There are not enough children that have grown to adulthood having been raised by a homosexual couple in order to understand what kind of long term affects this might have. Thousands of studies of children raised by single parents however show that children benefit enormously from having interaction with parents of both sexes. I could not in good conscience allow a child to be adopted by a same sex couple. No matter how loving a homosexual couple may be, it simply isn't fair to the child. It is too big of a risk. A child has a right to both a female and male parent. We know children raised without one or the other suffer for it.

[endure]

I see PeaceBlondie here.

That's good to hear.