Do You Support Legalization Of Same Sex Marriage In Thailand?

[SteeleJoe]

Duplicate. it's funny but not worth 2 smileys.

Edited June 1, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[samurai]

From my experience, gay parents on average, take a far greater interest in their children's well rounded behaviour than male + female parents that vary widely from terrible to excellent. My ex wife and I used to run a day care for children and we always noticed the differences in parenting. We had to deal with their kids every day.

That is just hetero bashing and prejudice.

Some here will love it.

How is it hetero bashing. It's the truth. I'm as straight a hetero as there is, but I closely observe what goes on around me. I've had several friends who have had gay sons. I worked very closely with a lesbian woman. My sisters and daughter have lesbian friends. I watch and I listen. My only concern is for children and their chances to succeed in the world as it is now. I don't care one bit about the sexuality of another person... unless it affects me in a negative way. In an ideal world, children would grow up in a heterosexual family with two loving parents who are always available, and who have enough money to provide a modest life style. Unfortunately, that is only a fairy tale and only applies to a small portion of the world's children. There is another fairy tale that says only women are the best at raising children. But that is an entirely different topic.

For sure gay couples are better parents than the male + female couples. that isn't hetero bashing.

And fathers are actually better in children raising than mothers, right?

[manarak]

It isn't natural, so shouldn't be allowed.

I've even heard that homosexuals should be able to adopt - what a load of bollo****

Marriage is not natural and mo·nog·a·my is not natural either. BR

This is an excellent point.

I think the heart of the debate is whether gay parents will produce more gay children than hetero parents.

I expect the answer to be yes if orientation is checked before the children are 30 years old, and undetermined if checked at 50 years old, because I think gay children are likely to come out of the closet earlier than others, but by the time the closet gays have wasted half of a unhappy life, they come out too.

[anotheruser]

I voted for the domestic union scheme. I am gay but I have no interest in church snctioned marriages of any kind. That being said I think no government should sanction marriage. Just go to the court to get yoour partnership certificate whether you are straight or not and file it there. You can find many churches anywhere in the world that will marry you in the denomination of your choice, gay or straight.

[Jingthing]

I voted for the domestic union scheme. I am gay but I have no interest in church snctioned marriages of any kind. That being said I think no government should sanction marriage. Just go to the court to get yoour partnership certificate whether you are straight or not and file it there. You can find many churches anywhere in the world that will marry you in the denomination of your choice, gay or straight.

Your point of view sounds extremely RADICAL. I don't know of any government in the entire world that does NOT sanction marriage. Can you name even one? Also, your point that gay people can "marry" in some religious places like synagogues and mosques (not likely) is 100 percent MEANINGLESS when it comes to the laws of various countries. It's like buying a degree on Khao San road. Legally, it isn't REAL. However, I respect your right to your opinion on this but quite honestly I doubt you will find many followers for it of any sexual orientation.

[honkytonklagoon]

No it's wrong and evil.

[samran]

Am I biased? Yes. Are you biased? Yes.

Now that we have that clear .......

Please tell how I am biased.

You are a Collingwood supporter. Kinda explains it all doesn't it?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Support it.

Personally I have a lot of doubts about marriage between anyone, but if people want to marry then that's their choice.

And of course they deserve any and all benefits in society or their taxes that come with that.

[jdinasia]

Duplicate. it's funny but not worth 2 smileys.

actually it is worthy of 2 smileys

[Jingthing]

No it's wrong and evil.

Marriage?

[Forethat]

I'd guess the majority of adults have no issues when individuals share the same interest. Personally, I cant see what the fuzz is all about - why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to marry..!?!?

On a similar topic, the only issue I have with this is when said individuals want to include a third person. For this reason, I will always oppose homosexual couples who claims they should be allowed to adopt children. I know several cases where homosexuals have "arranged" babies by insemination and similar, and I dont feel this is the right thing to do. Taking responsibility for ones own life, including any choices regarding who you want to love, doesn't mean one have the right the make the same choice for someone else.

[smokie36]

No it's wrong and evil.

I voted yes on the basis that it doesn't affect me in any way at all. If gay people want to get married and it makes them happy why would I object?

Only a redneck religious nutcase would take an opposing view which says it all really.

Such bigotry and hatred are all too common around the world and if such a law brings us a step closer to the point where someone can walk into a rural Thai bar and announce "I'm gay." and get a response of "Oh OK." then its well worth it.

The saddest post I've read in quite some time that was honkytonk.

[Richard4849]

Forethat: what choices does a gay couple impose on a baby? The baby will grow up to be either gay or straight, depending on how it is hard-wired, not who its parents are.

[jdinasia]

Forethat: what choices does a gay couple impose on a baby? The baby will grow up to be either gay or straight, depending on how it is hard-wired, not who its parents are.

He's taking steps forward ... give him some credit.

That he suggests that parenting is an issue for him doesn't surprise me. There are lots of people in the world that would have had a total knee-jerk "NO" response to gay marriage 20 years ago that give it tacit or even expressed approval now. The parenting thing is a separate issue even though it is a basic human right. The simple fact is that gay people are parents, quite often. People that would deny them this right create some of the issues such as gays that marry to have children then later divorce to have the life they were meant to have ... so they can have all the human rights of others. In some cases these parents make a conscious choice to sublimate their true sexuality in order to achieve fatherhood/motherhood, in other cases they just don't "come out" until later in life. Many of my gay friends in Thailand have adult children. Some of them stayed married "for the kids" until the kids were grown, and some left the marriage while the kids were still growing up. As we (rational adults) begin to realize that trying to limit human freedom always fails, we will mature as a people until rights are just freely assumed/given. In Thailand this is even less of an issue than elsewhere ... at least for gay farang. So many str8 Farang/Thai relationships fail and in so doing create so many broken households with children that it is easy to just be another statistic if a gay man wants children. That all a lesbian needs is a one night sperm-donor (ONS) to manage this and doesn't even require a relationship makes the entire situation of denying these rights to others even more farcical.

[thaisomchai]

Smokie, from what I have seen of rural Thailand ( Isaan mostly) and the reactions of ordinary Thai people in general is that such an announcement anywhere here would be met with the same response as if you announced, "I'm Canadian." or "I'm tired." or "I'm 27 years old." I cant imagine a reaction other than, "Oh, OK."

Thai people are remarkably accepting of all aspects of human sexuality in general and polite to a fault.

The problem with getting a same-sex marriage law passed (IMHO) comes with governmental perceptions and the need for Thailand to deny whatever the broader world might perceive as a fault. Politicians, hi-so businessmen, governmental powers tend to leap into denial to "save face" . .prostitution? drugs? child slavery? fake goods? beggar mafias? sex tourism? Here in Thailand??? Of course not. "We just have those three girls who dared to bare their breasts and look how we punished them!!"

Same sex marriage? That very topic opens an international discussion which is bound to include "sex" and "Thailand" in the same sentence and that is something to be avoided at all costs to preserve "face."

[samurai]

No it's wrong and evil.

Marriage?

Yes.

[kerryk]

No it's wrong and evil.

I voted yes on the basis that it doesn't affect me in any way at all. If gay people want to get married and it makes them happy why would I object?

Only a redneck religious nutcase would take an opposing view which says it all really.

Such bigotry and hatred are all too common around the world and if such a law brings us a step closer to the point where someone can walk into a rural Thai bar and announce "I'm gay." and get a response of "Oh OK." then its well worth it.

The saddest post I've read in quite some time that was honkytonk.

Smokie I happen to agree with you but I think only about 10% of the countries in the world currently do. So does that make 90% of the countries in the world religious nutcases? Or maybe 10% of the world says Yes and 90% says No, maybe that says it all really?

[smokie36]

No it's wrong and evil.

I voted yes on the basis that it doesn't affect me in any way at all. If gay people want to get married and it makes them happy why would I object?

Only a redneck religious nutcase would take an opposing view which says it all really.

Such bigotry and hatred are all too common around the world and if such a law brings us a step closer to the point where someone can walk into a rural Thai bar and announce "I'm gay." and get a response of "Oh OK." then its well worth it.

The saddest post I've read in quite some time that was honkytonk.

Smokie I happen to agree with you but I think only about 10% of the countries in the world currently do. So does that make 90% of the countries in the world religious nutcases? Or maybe 10% of the world says Yes and 90% says No, maybe that says it all really?

I suppose putting it another way there are a whole lot of people who haven't opened their eyes to a lot of things and so prefer the status quo.

But yeah I particularly dislike organised religion in this regard.

[kerryk]

No it's wrong and evil.

Marriage?

Yes.

I kind of agree with that. All of the kids in the world should be sent to Sweden and the Netherlands to be raised and educated. Send them back to the mother country when they are finished.

[Richard4849]

I disagree, Somchai.

I think approving such a law would be felt by the authorities as an opportunity to gain face rather than lose it. It would put Thailand among a small group of some of the most advanced countries in the world in regards to human rights -- ahead of even more economically advanced places like Japan, Korea, even the US.

I think they will happily seize on that opportunity, seeing that even the local religion eagerly embraces such unions (same sex union blessings are performed every day at just about every temple country-wide). It is a complete non-issue with the people and with the national religion, that there is very little to block the government from the opportunity to shine in the international arena.

I think they'll jump at it.

[kerryk]

No it's wrong and evil.

I voted yes on the basis that it doesn't affect me in any way at all. If gay people want to get married and it makes them happy why would I object?

Only a redneck religious nutcase would take an opposing view which says it all really.

Such bigotry and hatred are all too common around the world and if such a law brings us a step closer to the point where someone can walk into a rural Thai bar and announce "I'm gay." and get a response of "Oh OK." then its well worth it.

The saddest post I've read in quite some time that was honkytonk.

Smokie I happen to agree with you but I think only about 10% of the countries in the world currently do. So does that make 90% of the countries in the world religious nutcases? Or maybe 10% of the world says Yes and 90% says No, maybe that says it all really?

I suppose putting it another way there are a whole lot of people who haven't opened their eyes to a lot of things and so prefer the status quo.

But yeah I particularly dislike organised religion in this regard.

I agree with you negative comments on organized religions but I would include disorganized religions too. A lot of religions are really disorganized with different branches not knowing what the other is doing or who the head of the church is. Like banks. Banks are bad enough but disorganized banks are even worse.

[kerryk]

I disagree, Somchai.

I think approving such a law would be felt by the authorities as an opportunity to gain face rather than lose it. It would put Thailand among a small group of some of the most advanced countries in the world in regards to human rights -- ahead of even more economically advanced places like Japan, Korea, even the US.

I think they will happily seize on that opportunity, seeing that even the local religion eagerly embraces such unions (same sex union blessings are performed every day at just about every temple country-wide). It is a complete non-issue with the people and with the national religion, that there is very little to block the government from the opportunity to shine in the international arena.

I think they'll jump at it.

Just to remind you that 90% of the world would think they were evil 10% think they were shining.

[jdinasia]

I disagree, Somchai.

I think approving such a law would be felt by the authorities as an opportunity to gain face rather than lose it. It would put Thailand among a small group of some of the most advanced countries in the world in regards to human rights -- ahead of even more economically advanced places like Japan, Korea, even the US.

I think they will happily seize on that opportunity, seeing that even the local religion eagerly embraces such unions (same sex union blessings are performed every day at just about every temple country-wide). It is a complete non-issue with the people and with the national religion, that there is very little to block the government from the opportunity to shine in the international arena.

I think they'll jump at it.

I wish I could agree with you .. but I can't. Even in Thailand it is a bit too much of a "hot-button" issue. Far easier to let things remain the same than it is to change. Personally the Thais I know would say that there SHOULD be equal rights .. but almost none would work towards that goal. This includes gay people.

[jdinasia]

Just to remind you that 90% of the world would think they were evil 10% think they were shining.

Really? Where do those figures come from?

The West* would mostly view it with approval .... countries under religious control would see it as evil but then again they already think of Thailand as being evil/too permissive (and flock here for just that reason )

The UN would rate it highly as a human-rights victory --- even while some member states cried foul ...

[saraburioz]

Duplicate. it's funny but not worth 2 smileys.

actually it is worthy of 2 smileys

Cut the crap - just tell me how I am biased - if you can, which I doubt.

[Forethat]

Forethat: what choices does a gay couple impose on a baby? The baby will grow up to be either gay or straight, depending on how it is hard-wired, not who its parents are.

Getting beat up every day at school because "your dad's getting shagged in the arse every night...?"

[samurai]

No it's wrong and evil.

Marriage?

Yes.

I kind of agree with that. All of the kids in the world should be sent to Sweden and the Netherlands to be raised and educated. Send them back to the mother country when they are finished.

I said yes, because i think that marriage is a patriarchal structure of oppression and possession. It's a construct of gender roles, it defines what a man has to be to be a *man* and what a woman has to be to be a *woman*. The two different roles are not seen as "equal", even if by law any discrimination is eliminated. It is still a difference between rule and subordination.

I wouldn't be surprised if those who are pro same-sex marriage live or want to live in a relationship where the two partners have different roles (no matter if its a same sex relationship or one between man and woman).

[jdinasia]

Forethat: what choices does a gay couple impose on a baby? The baby will grow up to be either gay or straight, depending on how it is hard-wired, not who its parents are.

Getting beat up every day at school because "your dad's getting shagged in the arse every night...?"

I can only guess that it has been a fair number of years since you were a student. I grew up in Texas .... in a conservative small city .... graduated HS in 1982 ... and was openly gay. I was "beat up" once (jumped by a group of guys at school) and only once throughout my HS years. I wasn't a jock ... in fact I played the cello, so I should have been an easy target. (I dealt with that group one:one later -- and was beat down once more -- out of 5 fights that I picked. That backed off anyone targetting gay kids in my school.) There were a couple of really outrageously femme guys and they were never touched. The reality was most people didn't care and life was fairly easy because I had parents that were only concerned with my happiness and well being.

The world has changed even more since 1982 --- and while there certainly could be issues of bullies --- it would simply be because those kids are bullies. They will always look for a victim, but they are far less tolerated now than they were even when I was in school.

This being Thailand .... the issues would be far smaller than in the West

[jdinasia]

Duplicate. it's funny but not worth 2 smileys.

actually it is worthy of 2 smileys

Cut the crap - just tell me how I am biased - if you can, which I doubt.

It was explained fully in the post you quoted when you first asked that question.

[saraburioz]

Duplicate. it's funny but not worth 2 smileys.

actually it is worthy of 2 smileys

Cut the crap - just tell me how I am biased - if you can, which I doubt.

It was explained fully in the post you quoted when you first asked that question.

No it wasn't. I am totally unbiased here.