Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'

[DumFarang]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

There need not be sustainable numbers of procreating gays and lesbians, because no one is saying, nor advocating, that all should turn gay since they are free to do so. This has always been a strawman argument of the change adverse... 'if we let them freely do this they will subverte the culture entirely'.

I've never understood why joining any 'couple of individuals' together as sustained and devoted partners with legal rights of assignment and child custody should in anyway diminish another couples relationship.

From a medical point of view in the age of AIDS etc, bonding couple of what ever genders THEY choose is a public health benefit and running against any sense of decadence.

From a sociological point of view joining couples creates family units that aid in sustaining themselves with out state assistance. Often there are earlier spawned children involved regardless of the couples procreate intent, and official joining them makes for more stable child rearing regardless of parental sex preferences.

There is if anything a social imperative to limit numbers of births, with out removing all procreation completely.

And we adopted an orphaned pre-teen niece to raise as our own, because this helps the situation, versus the wife and I procreating.

Which in no ways means I do not intend to have sex with the Mrs. regularly, even if we plan no babies. I reject anyones telling me the true purpose of our deciding to make love together and not make a baby...

Decadence –noun

1.the act or process of falling into an inferior condition

or state; deterioration; decay: Some historians hold that the fall of Rome can be attributed to internal decadence.

2.moral degeneration or decay; turpitude.

3.unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence.

4.( often initial capital letter ) the decadent movement in literature.

Often a culture is called decadent when it is in a state of flux or transition from one state to another. Often caused by thing such as Industrial Revolution, invention of gunpowder, over-population, over reach geographically by leadership, medical advances that alter the status quo of generations.

Progress in general often can be blamed by some as causing decadence. Also freedom of choice in one segment of a culture, can be abhorred by less free areas of and culture.

Essentially like inner city urbanistas vs rural agri-belt fundamentalists.

In some case segments of a culture move at differing speeds for different reasons, and the slower ones often cry DECADENCE while their children often assimilate and gravitate to the new modality.

Well to be honest I don't think we as a society quite know yet what will come of same sex partners raising children. The kids might be completely normal or they might be messed up. It might just depend on the family in question like it does with any other family. We don't have a long history of that yet, so it's too early to tell what will happen there, if anything.

I guess at this stage of the debate it just starts whittling down to what people believe. I have certain beliefs, almost none of which are rooted in any religion, although some people might think I'm some sort of fundamentalist. I'm a big believer in the function of marriage and family. Although I would be lying if I said I haven't had those days where I concluded that marriage must have been invented by women for the purpose of crushing man's urge to be a man, but that's beside the point.

As for my views I believe marriage is mainly centered around the idea of starting a family, the current legal/tax benefits not withstanding. So, what about the argument that gays make about the legal benefits of marriage? Hell, give them the benefits and call it a legal partnership, who cares. Just stop masquerading it around like it's ever going to be a true family or marriage.

Some people far wiser than me need to think about the issue of adoption, because I don't know if it's a good idea raising children around homosexuals or not, but it doesn't sit right with me.

[chooka]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or maybe they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

Thomas Beatie, the "pregnant man" who gave birth to a daughter in 2008 and a son the next year , is a father for the third time. When your father is your mother. The grounds for a very normal stable upbringing

Edited July 17, 2011 by chooka

[DumFarang]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or maybe they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

Thomas Beatie, the "pregnant man" who gave birth to a daughter in 2008 and a son the next year , is a father for the third time.

You mean a man named Thomas Beatie was born with ovaries and has been impregnated two times? Wow, that's incredible!

[evanson]

Like most religions based on fairy tales and gobbledey gook and no facts he made his first mistake when he uttered this or maybe they counted his chromosomes

"Were you born as a man or a woman or can you not specify your gender - not man or woman?" asked Phra Pitsanu at a recent assembly. "You cannot be anything else but your true gender, which is a man. As a novice you can only be a man."

Whilst I don't give a crap. I do remember something being quoted from THE BIBLE on a documentary re a transgender female to male (or could've been the other way around), the subject of which was a quote from THE BIBLE stating, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, ahem 'When thou art not man nor woman, then shall ye enter the kingdom of God'(sic), and,having been inscribed on their headstone.

As to the katoey issue. I've never come across so many than here, and upon asking a local 'why'? was given the same answer as those in India, (albeit a much more sexually repressed, thus kateoy marginalised, society than here), insofar as; some families tend to bring up some of their male children as 'girls' in order for them to go out and 'make a living for the family'.

Probably true in some cases, particularly in India, but hey! Everyone's different. And should have the right to be allowed to express their sexuality in their own way.

And 'Thai Buddhists'? There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

Edited July 17, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[chooka]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or maybe they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

Thomas Beatie, the "pregnant man" who gave birth to a daughter in 2008 and a son the next year , is a father for the third time.

You mean a man named Thomas Beatie was born with ovaries and has been impregnated two times? Wow, that's incredible!

Possibably more like a female who didn't have the support structure to teach him how to be lady like the monks in Thailand are teaching maleness to ladyboys.

[evanson]

A waste of time.

These children are clearly wire differently in the brain than their genitals are externally observed.

You can't retrain a brain to be what it is not. Only add more information to what it has. If you load

in basic contradictions it only breeds mental disharmony, and doesn't correct what some see as a

social disharmony between the individual and society.

Conservative Christians have tried this in the west and caused more deviation than was started with.

This includes family men living a lie inside themselves and finally opting for abandoning their families,

or even as drastic as suicide etc.

A waste of time or worse.

Quite right.

Not sure what religion has to do with sexuality anyway.

If anyone knows of any express (NOT implied) pronouncements from Buddha, Jesus or any other leading historical religious figure about the rights or wrongs of gaydom, let him speak.

Yeahhhhh ... Always wondered why the sex thing was always predominant in list of 'no-no's' in every religion ... You reckon they caught on to 'sex sells' before The Dirty Digger!?

Edited July 17, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[evanson]

So why do you think (to everyone) that there seems to be a unusual amount of trans gender people in Thailand? Ok I know all some will say not enough! But...have a guess even or give it some thought to why..

here are the reasons that I have been told.

1.Lean bhap..thats copy to be in the gang.

2. Thailand is more open in general towards being gay.

3. Parents would rather see their daughter with another girl as a teenager than with a boy who may get here pregnant.

4. Poisons in the air and food.

5.Born that way.

6. Too much soy milk and tophu in the diet as a teenager which has too many female hormones in..The N.H.S. in the UK warns not to give this to teenage boys!

7.Being taught by elders and piers thats its acceptable to be Bi sexual..

I would probely agree across the board with all this reasons which add up to the reason we seem and do see more cross gender people in Thailand.

So any other reason you all can think of?

As for no.1 I would say that its a fair to say that maybe children who have become a Katoey at a eary age need time to find out if its what they really want so maybe there could be a reason for councilling at a early age? I will get slated for that but as I said some do it to become one of the gang..Told to me and seen by Thais...

No. 3 was given to me by a female Thai lawyer as her reason to have a four year relationship with another FEMALE student before marrying a farang (before we get the usual nasty jibes about 'the effeminent Thai men').

I did find that rather odd. I mean, they don't smell the same or anything (of either sex).

[animatic]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Like most religions based on fairy tales and gobbledey gook and no facts he made his first mistake when he uttered this or maybe they counted his chromosomes

"Were you born as a man or a woman or can you not specify your gender - not man or woman?" asked Phra Pitsanu at a recent assembly. "You cannot be anything else but your true gender, which is a man. As a novice you can only be a man."

Whilst I don't give a crap. I do remember something being quoted from THE BIBLE on a documentary re a transgender female to male (or could've been the other way around), the subject of which was a quote from THE BIBLE stating, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, ahem 'When thou art not man nor woman, then shall ye enter the kingdom of God'(sic), and,having been inscribed on their headstone.

As to the katoey issue. I've never come across so many than here, and upon asking a local 'why'? was given the same answer as those in India, (albeit a much more sexually repressed, thus kateoy marginalised, society than here), insofar as; some families tend to bring up some of their male children as 'girls' in order for them to go out and 'make a living for the family'.

Probably true in some cases, particularly in India, but hey! Everyone's different. And should have the right to be allowed to express their sexuality in their own way.

And 'Thai Buddhists'? There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

The bible quote means 'once they are dead they are but sexless soul ascending to heaven'.

I think the comment about raising boys as girls to work is more of

They find a child predisposed to be transgender, and at some point, maybe after a visit to the Wat and the sessions with the monks described in the OP, that they acquiesce, and accept it is so, and if the boy is pretty, encourage him to be a family earner like a daughter might be, while it lasts. A beautiful ladyboy can be quite an earner for a dirt farmer family, just as a very pretty daughter might be, maybe more so. Not discussing the moral component in this.

[metisdead]

As the discussion was drifting away from "Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'" some posts and replies have been removed.

When replying to certain parts of a post, learn how to use the Insert quotation feature instead of changing the font color of the quoted content.

[softgeorge]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

[animatic]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

We know now that argument was a bad idea.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[DumFarang]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

[DumFarang]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

We know now that was a bad idea.

Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share.

[animatic]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[softgeorge]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

This may be what the monks are trying to address

[softgeorge]

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Some kids just can't can't deal with it. Teenage suicide rates have been climbing worldwide for years. Before entering into such a family I am sure there would be a lot of things to consider and especially not just that the couple want a child. It would be far harder decision to make than that of a hetrosexual couple.

[DumFarang]

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Of course the reason makes a difference. How we're born etc. is completely out of our control, but when it comes to our kids we have the opportunity to make decisions on purpose that we know will make a kid's life more challenging or easier, depends on the issue. There's productively challenging children like giving them chores in return for an allowance, for example. Conversely the average responsible parent is able to comprehend the fact that just giving kids things they ask for, especially if they start crying, is temporarily easier but not productive for the well being of the child.

Well I guess that's off topic, but it seems to me that we are able to have quite a profound impact on children.

[SteeleJoe]

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share.

And yet that social stigma -- and the possibility of consequential bullying etc -- is precisely what you offer as a reason why gay couples should not have kids.

And in fact they share a great deal more than that -- things they share with all marriages. remove the "social stigma and there's little left that sets them apart. (And gay couples don't necessarily have any inherent or potential cross-cultural issues.

[SteeleJoe]

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Of course the reason makes a difference. How we're born etc. is completely out of our control...

The reason for bullying is what was being refernced. You didn't explain why that makes a difference. (Leaving aside the "How we are born" issue and whether that doesn't only include people's race but also their sexuality)

[SteeleJoe]

Man, I was determined to stay out of the Straight guy says, "Nothing wrong with being gay..." part of this thread.

[DumFarang]

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share.

And yet that social stigma -- and the possibility of consequential bullying etc -- is precisely what you offer as a reason why gay couples should not have kids.

And in fact they share a great deal more than that -- things they share with all marriages. remove the "social stigma and there's little left that sets them apart. (And gay couples don't necessarily have any inherent or potential cross-cultural issues.

Well if removing the social stigma leaves two marriages that are otherwise similar in your mind then this is definitely where we just disagree, not much more to say I guess.

[SteeleJoe]

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share.

And yet that social stigma -- and the possibility of consequential bullying etc -- is precisely what you offer as a reason why gay couples should not have kids.

And in fact they share a great deal more than that -- things they share with all marriages. remove the "social stigma and there's little left that sets them apart. (And gay couples don't necessarily have any inherent or potential cross-cultural issues.

Well if removing the social stigma leaves two marriages that are otherwise similar in your mind then this is definitely where we just disagree, not much more to say I guess.

Why not much more to say? You've had plenty to say before.

But let's stick with what you did say already:

A poster says:

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

Another poster replies:

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

You reply to first by saying:

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Then you reply to second poster with:

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached.

Now leaving aside, as per your wishes, these many and/or significant differences you see but are unwilling to discuss, why did you agree that the social stigma matters regarding inter-racial marriages -- but then dismiss that stigma that is shared as being unimportant?

In other words, you say the stigma should/could be a reason for same-sex couples not to have children but then when someone points out that very same idea held in the past (now far less socially acceptable as it was based on race), you say it doesn't apply.

EDIT cuz I messed it up.

Edited July 17, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[sirchai]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

How can something be against nature, if laws and rules are manmade?

Looks like ladyboys are all around the world, not just in Thailand, the culture here is obviously more acceptable regarding sexual preferences.

I'm neither gay, nor into –lol- ladyboys. Religions always define what a person should be, or what they should do.

I'm just wondering why people look down on men who're gays, but watching lesbian movies. Can two girls 'produce' a child?

I guess not, but they can 'use' somebody, or his semen.

The definition what's against nature comes from human values like the Roman Catholic Church has...... Glad, I'm out. :jap:

Edited July 17, 2011 by sirchai

[DumFarang]

Why not much more to say? You've had plenty to say before.

But let's stick with what you did say already:

A poster says:

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

Another poster replies:

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

You reply to first by saying:

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Then you reply to second poster with:

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached.

Now leaving aside, as per your wishes, these many and/or significant differences you see but are unwilling to discuss, why did you agree that the social stigma matters regarding inter-racial marriages -- but then dismiss that stigma that is shared as being unimportant?

In other words, you say the stigma should/could be a reason for same-sex couples not to have children but then when someone points out that very same idea held in the past (now far less socially acceptable as it was based on race), you say it doesn't apply.

EDIT cuz I messed it up.

You realize that we're unlikely to ever reach a point of agreement on this right. It's obvious that we just believe different things. People are quick to change their minds but slow to change their beliefs.

But, since you asked...

The full quote is:

"Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share."

Animatic has consistently tried to substantiate arguments by citing something different like this and basically arguing: well it wasn't true there so it must not be true here. That's why the first two sentences belong in this discussion. When viewed in the proper context I think one can quickly deduce that I meant you can replace interracial marriage in that quote with anything in the history of forever that has ever had a social stigma attached to it, and it doesn't make it similar to gay marriage just because they share the word stigma in their respective legacies. That's all that meant.

Now with the fat cut away all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from same sex marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are gay can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. That's essentially what the whole "It gets better" campaign was about. Well, how far removed is a kid growing up in a gay family? I guess it could be pretty far if he/she is able to make sure nobody meets the parents. That might not happen though.

Furthermore, by granting gay marriages the right to have children a government automatically removes the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

[Jingthing]

As only about 2 percent of men are exclusively gay, it's hardly a problem with "nature" and the species making more than enough babies. Actually, for the survival of our species, we could use with a WHOLE LOT LESS breeding as human populations are destroying our planet home. Worry about a REAL threat like global warming and nuclear weapons, not the non-existent threat of a tiny portion of the population not participating in biological breeding. In fact, it's quite obvious that IF this was a real problem (which it ain't) that heterosexuals would be the BIGGER threat (if there was a threat) as being 98 percent of the world, clearly way over 2 percent of them choose not to breed and/or can't physically breed in the first place! Stop blaming non-existent "problems" on hated minorities. It is not cool.

[ginjag]

Like most religions based on fairy tales and gobbledey gook and no facts he made his first mistake when he uttered this or maybe they counted his chromosomes

"Were you born as a man or a woman or can you not specify your gender - not man or woman?" asked Phra Pitsanu at a recent assembly. "You cannot be anything else but your true gender, which is a man. As a novice you can only be a man."

Whilst I don't give a crap. I do remember something being quoted from THE BIBLE on a documentary re a transgender female to male (or could've been the other way around), the subject of which was a quote from THE BIBLE stating, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, ahem 'When thou art not man nor woman, then shall ye enter the kingdom of God'(sic), and,having been inscribed on their headstone.

As to the katoey issue. I've never come across so many than here, and upon asking a local 'why'? was given the same answer as those in India, (albeit a much more sexually repressed, thus kateoy marginalised, society than here), insofar as; some families tend to bring up some of their male children as 'girls' in order for them to go out and 'make a living for the family'.

Probably true in some cases, particularly in India, but hey! Everyone's different. And should have the right to be allowed to express their sexuality in their own way.

And 'Thai Buddhists'? There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.

The bible quote means 'once they are dead they are but sexless soul ascending to heaven'.

I think the comment about raising boys as girls to work is more of

They find a child predisposed to be transgender, and at some point, maybe after a visit to the Wat and the sessions with the monks described in the OP, that they acquiesce, and accept it is so, and if the boy is pretty, encourage him to be a family earner like a daughter might be, while it lasts. A beautiful ladyboy can be quite an earner for a dirt farmer family, just as a very pretty daughter might be, maybe more so. Not discussing the moral component in this.

I know a friend who runs a male go go bar. 50% of the boys have girl friends-or are married.

It's business he said, Oriental ladies go into the boys go go as do the males to choose a boy.

Many posters say that it would make them sick if they went with the same sex, so these boys adapt?

But I thought if it was not your cup of tea you couldn't indulge?

Are therefore Asian men more flexible than Westerners?. Are Western males more afraid of the unknown/and or were they programmed by their families etc that it was wrong/dirty/not natural, hence the attitude problems many have towards gay/ladyboys. Or does Asians in general have no stigma/problems with sex.

[SteeleJoe]

Saving time and effort:

Dumfarang:

OK, let's ignore what ever posting habits Aimatic allegedly has.

Now with the fat cut away, all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from inter-racial marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are bullied at school for any number of reasons can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. Well, what about a kid from a bi-racial family?

Furthermore, by interracial couple choosing to marry they automatically remove the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

(That sound like a reasonable argument to you?)

EDIT to add address line and fix format

Edited July 17, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Jingthing]

I know a friend who runs a male go go bar. 50% of the boys have girl friends-or are married.

It's business he said, Oriental ladies go into the boys go go as do the males to choose a boy.

Many posters say that it would make them sick if they went with the same sex, so these boys adapt?

But I thought if it was not your cup of tea you couldn't indulge?

Are therefore Asian men more flexible than Westerners?. Are Western males more afraid of the unknown/and or were they programmed by their families etc that it was wrong/dirty/not natural, hence the attitude problems many have towards gay/ladyboys. Or does Asians in general have no stigma/problems with sex.

Ridiculous! Nothing to do with Asian! Gay for pay exists ALL over the world, and likely always has. There is an interesting fact about this. Psychological studies have shown that a decent percentage of total hetero male prostitutes "turn" to be actually gay over time due to the positive reinforcement of the pleasure ORGASMS being associated with MSM sex. If fundies want to convert young gays, that might be the only real hope. Pay the young men MONEY to have sex everyday with WOMEN, and if theory about the MSM sex workers sometimes turning is true, the same should apply to the GAY young men. This is one tactic the fundies haven't tried as it offends their morality, but it would be a very interesting scientific experiment indeed. I don't think this phenom would work with males over a certain age, as male sexuality is set much earlier in life and is much LESS FLUID than female sexuality. Please keep in mind, MALE TO MALE SEX is in no way the same thing as gay orientation!

BTW, in male prostitution is most cultures, there is simply more MSM demand than hetero sex, so it's respond to market demand or refuse good money. However, there are some parts of the world which have developed big gigolo markets such as Haiti and some African countries, and indeed Thailand as well largely for Japanese ladies.

Another point, to those who were offended by my assertion that HOT MAN TO MAN SEX is a great thing, well yes I was kind of pulling your chain to make a point. It's about gay equality and how far we still need to come with this issue. Ask yourself would you who were offended be similarly offended if someone wrote HOT MAN TO WOMEN SEX is great? No? Of course not, because the mass media blasts you everyday with 1000 messages selling hot hetero sex. It's not enough you are 98 of the world, you can't have tolerance for a minority viewpoint?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jingthing

[DumFarang]

Saving time and effort:

Dumfarang:

OK, let's ignore what ever posting habits Aimatic allegedly has.

Now with the fat cut away, all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from inter-racial marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are bullied at school for any number of reasons can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. Well, what about a kid from a bi-racial family?

Furthermore, by interracial couple choosing to marry they automatically remove the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

(That sound like a reasonable argument to you?)

EDIT to add address line and fix format

I don't see why you brought interracial marriage back into it. With those words substituted in it doesn't sound right to me, but with gay marriage put back in it makes perfect sense.

Now with the fat cut away, all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from super hero families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are bullied at school for any number of reasons can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. Well, what about a kid from a super hero family?

Furthermore, by a super hero couple choosing to marry they automatically remove the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

(That sound like a reasonable argument to you?)