How To Explain Gay Rights To Idiots

[tombkk]

You are just twisting things around. You clearly insist that religion and marriage are necessarily linked, and they are not. You play the USA card when it pleases you. Face the reality, we have different positions and in my view your insistence that religion and marriage MUST be linked and also that progress for civil rights must NOT involve the word marriage are obviously totally wrong, and yes, ridiculously irrational.

Yes, I know what I just said is strong. What you are asserting is objectively wrong, objectively falsehoods. Not opinion.

Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it.

I should not even taken your bait and replied...

[Jingthing]

Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it.

I should not even taken your bait and replied...

Good choice. I can only react to what you have explicitly said. (Religion MUST be linked to marriage by definition and civil rights for gays can ONLY be achieved WITHOUT reference to marriage). I am a lot of things but not a mind reader. Edited January 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it.

I should not even taken your bait and replied...

Good choice. I can only react to what you have explicitly said. (Religion MUST be linked to marriage by definition and civil rights for gays can ONLY be achieved WITHOUT reference to marriage). I am a lot of things but not a mind reader.

Well, but even without mind reading you did get it right. I think you must have been secretly reading my posts.

Mind you, I did say that you are the expert for the US, where you claim that the term Marriage is needed, and I only referred to The World, which is that little piece of unworthy real estate that is not in the US. So let's not mix up apples and pears, i.e. the US as you see it, and the rest of the world.

[jdinasia]

I don't really care about the terminology as I do not reside in either the UK nor the US. (Though the concept of procreation being the purpose of marriage ended about the same time that a marriage could be ended when children were not conceived.) I want the rights and that is all. When and if the discussion comes in Thailand it certainly will not have the same overtones that it has in the West.

Since women's rights are decades behind the West here in Thailand, I assume that gay rights won't progress that quickly here.

Note ---- the above is what I actually said and not the tiny line pulled to use out of context.

[Jingthing]

Thank you for making clear that you really don't get it.

I should not even taken your bait and replied...

Good choice. I can only react to what you have explicitly said. (Religion MUST be linked to marriage by definition and civil rights for gays can ONLY be achieved WITHOUT reference to marriage). I am a lot of things but not a mind reader.

Well, but even without mind reading you did get it right. I think you must have been secretly reading my posts.

Mind you, I did say that you are the expert for the US, where you claim that the term Marriage is needed, and I only referred to The World, which is that little piece of unworthy real estate that is not in the US. So let's not mix up apples and pears, i.e. the US as you see it, and the rest of the world.

There you go again. Totally misrepresenting what I have said. Please stop.

Here is a clue for you in the unfortunate event that you want to continue this obviously unproductive chit chat. When I am referring to peculiarities of US law, I say so. When I don't, you can assume I am talking about gay civil rights in a general INTERNATIONAL sense. I don't appreciate your snarky implication that I only care about or only comment about US gay civil rights issues. Anyone following my posting history here knows full well I see it is as an international civil rights/human rights struggle, just as Hillary Clinton does.

I am happy for any level of progress towards that end. In some countries in Africa and the Middle East, it may be simply not murdering us. In the more enlightened countries (often meaning not being under the yoke of religious fundamentalists) it means completely equal civil rights under the law.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I don't really care about the terminology as I do not reside in either the UK nor the US. (Though the concept of procreation being the purpose of marriage ended about the same time that a marriage could be ended when children were not conceived.) I want the rights and that is all. When and if the discussion comes in Thailand it certainly will not have the same overtones that it has in the West.

Since women's rights are decades behind the West here in Thailand, I assume that gay rights won't progress that quickly here.

Note ---- the above is what I actually said and not the tiny line pulled to use out of context.

No problem with that but I feel no regret as the line I pulled was a good thought which stood well on its own.

[tombkk]

Here is a clue for you in the unfortunate event that you want to continue this obviously unproductive chit chat. When I am referring to peculiarities of US law, I say so. When I don't, you can assume I am talking about gay civil rights in a general INTERNATIONAL sense. I don't appreciate your snarky implication that I only care about or only comment about US gay civil rights issues. Anyone following my posting history here knows full well I see it is as an international civil rights/human rights struggle, just as Hillary Clinton does.

I am happy for any level of progress towards that end. In some countries in Africa and the Middle East, it may be simply not murdering us. In the more enlightened countries (often meaning not being under the yoke of religious fundamentalists) it means completely equal civil rights under the law.

I am not sure why you sent this message. We agree on the second paragraph, but in another posting you said that it must be tied to the word Marriage, which totally contradicts your first paragraph. You have explained why the word is necessary in the US, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the world.

We are going in circles. I offered before to agree to disagree, but you insisted on insutling me for that. I have nothng further to say.

Next...

[Jingthing]

Again, the twisting to save your face. I will let my posts stand.

[Daewoo]

Hi, I'm Daewoo, it has been forever since my last gay experience... I'm not gay, I've never been gay, and don't think I ever will be...

Despite being raised in a Christian house, going to Sunday School, going to Church youth groups sometime by choice (mostly to chase girls), and being married (still married) in a church, I don't consider myself to be a Christian either...

I believe, The Church gave up Copyright of the word 'marriage' the day the ceremony was allowed to be conducted by a 'civil celebrant' or any other non-church afffiliated party...

In my opinion, marriage, is a legal term to describe a legal contract, simillar to mortgage... who witnessed the execution of the contract is irrelevant... in fact, (in Australia) even in a Church wedding, it is an actual contract that is signed and witnessed by the wedding party, and without it, you aren't married...

The Church should not be forced to marry Gays if they don't want to... It's their club, their beliefs, and they should be allowed to set the rules...

If The Church want's to call their ceremonies Religious Wedding, and internally, the outcome as a Religious Marriage, up to them, but all State documentation should just include the name for the type of contract 'Marriage'...

So long as the title married is used to represent legal entitlements, it should be open to any two parties who agree to be bound to the rules of the contract... can't say I can see myself ever agreeing to it being extended beyond two parties, but never gave it much thought...

Marriage has nought to do with producing kids... or else you would need to rule out anyone on their second (or third or thirteenth) marriage who has already had kids and has no intention to start again... you would need to exclude people who just know they aren't destined for that life... Medical reasons, Vegas weddings, Celebrity weddings, redheads (who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce), and The Greeks who only know how to do it in the backdoor...

P.S. Jingthing, if you want to be taken seriously, pull your head in an have a rational discussion...

Daewoo

Edited January 3, 2012 by Daewoo

[Jingthing]

I reckon this interesting article is relevant to the differences between civil unions vs. marriage, in the state of Illinois, USA. The USA has no federal (national) gay marriage OR civil unions. Its focus is the implications of HETEROSEXUAL civil unions rather than gay ones.

Civil unions, once seen as a way station between nonrecognition of gay and lesbian relationships and full marriage equality, may turn out to be more interesting than their origin in compromise might have predicted. In the case of same-sex couples, civil unions end up underscoring the point that committed gay and lesbian relationships are less than straight ones. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court stated in a 2004 opinion, calling gay and lesbian unions civil unions rather than marriage is a “considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.”

http://www.slate.com...arriage_.2.html Edited January 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Because of internet issues I have unfortunately been unable to continue participating until now- however, I would have to say that I agree with ProThaiExpat (and welcome back, btw) if my understanding of his post is correct. It appears to me that he is advocating for ALL civil unions (those accomplished with contracts by the state) to be called CIVIL UNIONS and not marriages. This would be true for both straight and gay couples, and I agree that would accomplish the result of no legal discrimination. In other words, no one would be LEGALLY married- because the state contract would no longer be called a 'marriage'. The churches could continue whatever voodoo they want and call it whatever they like, and their believers could exclude anyone they wished on the basis of whatever superstitious claptrap they preferred. It might play havoc with legal terminology and it would certainly be hard on the language ('Hi, I'm Susan. This is Bill, my civil union partner'), but it would work legally and democratically.

Then, whenever anyone told me they were married, I could simply reply that their religious beliefs were none of my business....

[Jingthing]

Interesting academic point. Please name me ONE country where that is likely to actually EVER happen? I like to keep my civil rights struggles based in REALITY.

[Ijustwannateach]

JT- you seriously need to chill out on this thread. I'm not saying that as a moderator, but as someone who is concerned. A little perspective is called for.

(PS, this is not a response to your last post, which is fine- I just saw that).

[Daewoo]

I originally started from the standpoint of dispensing with the legal concept of the term 'marriage' and creating a new term, and leaving that term to The Church, from where it originated... but upon reflection, I realised that The Church has not had sole rights to the term for many decades... so why should everyone who wants to be 'married' (like me), regardless of who conducted the ceremony, have to use a different term to appease the few (specifically within The Church), opposed to sharing it...

Let the Church create a new term to differentiate 'their' marriages, which would have no legal bearing... and anyone married within The Church still needs to complete the legal contract required for marriage...

To be honest, I never understood why Gay's have fought so hard to be recognised by an organisation that expressly excludes them, until I understood that 'marriage' is not the domain of The Church, but the domain of society in general...

Of course, when I use the term, 'The Church', I refer to organised religion, not religious people who may or may not be accepting of GLBT people...

Cheers,

Daewoo