Poll: Current Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand

[BigJohnnyBKK]

A recent interesting piece from the Guardian breaks it down pretty well.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

The "sanctifying" institution has the right to decide who can marry under its jurisdiction.

The religious aspect of marriage is decided by the church concerned, or in the case of Thai upcountry ceremonies I suppose the local abbot, in many cases the local community informally - but none of these have anything to do with legal, financial/tax etc issues.

The latter is defined by the relevant government authority, in the US it's state by state. In my previous post of the Guardian article it breaks down the various areas of human rights affected. I have no idea what the distinction is between the first two choices in the poll, to me they are equivalent.

IMO neither physical sex (which is often ambiguous in the human animal anyway) nor orientation/preference (of which there is nearly infinite combinations as we glimpsed in the "Tom" thread) should have anything to do with it, it's simply a legal/financial contract entered into between two people.

Also IMO polyamory should be recognized, but I think it will be a while before society has progressed sufficiently for that.

Gays make wonderful parents, often better than most straights IMO.

Edited May 12, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[isanbirder]

I'm against using the word marriage for religious reasons, which is why I voted for JT's second alternative, the civil union, or, as it is known in Britain, civil partnership. We do need the rights, for reasons of tax, inheritance, rights of access when one partner is incapacitated, even the right to dispose of the partner's body when he dies. I have grim experience of this in Thailand; I won't go into detail, but it took me a fortnight to secure the rights to dispose of his body (with the morgue ringing up daily saying, 'We can't keep it much longer!").

The US has screwed this issue up by having different systems in different states, hence JT's distinction between marriage and civil union.

But, being pragmatic, as I've said on the Gay Forum, the word marriage is going to be used for this union whatever the laws call it. Language, like water, takes the easiest path.

[bendix]

Pesonally i do not care what two men or women get up to sexually in the privacy of their own home,up to them ,but as to getting married or adopting ,no way , marriage and adoption is for couples of the opposit sex as nature intended.

Could you explain how 'nature intended' relates to marriage? How many other species marry?

If your argument against gay marriage is based on the notion that gay relationships or gay sex is unnatural, define what you mean by natural. How can any sexual act that happens naturally between two people not be rooted in nature?

If your argument is that it's unnatural because gay sex doesnt lead to procreation, I would be interested in your views on oral and anal sex between a man and a woman. Are they also unnatural?

[brit1984]

While religion can often be used to engender positive effects on society (by guiding people towards respect and care for their fellow human-being), religion is just as often used for negative reasons to promote evil.

It is ridiculous to discriminate against homosexuals just because some representatives of one's religion have studied and interpreted (or mis-interpreted) a really old book and found some bigoted views amongst the text.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[BespokeMan]

sorry, but this is not good idea in my country or thailand

[bendix]

For the record, I'm delighted that JurgenG's disgraceful post was deleted, yet remains in some replies for others to see the hate-filled attitude of some TV members.

Given the typical demographic of the TV community, I don't suppose I should be have been surprised.

I'll respect views that are worth respecting. When someone comes out with utter nonsense such as gays hate men and gays hate women (a direct quote) I think I'm more than justified in treating such a viewpoint with the contempt it deserves.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Scott
*Deleted quote edited out

[Jingthing]

Poll: Current WESTERN Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand

There - I corrected your thread title.

Endure, it's implied that this is a poll of the membership of this forum. A diverse forum. Mostly westerners? Yes.

There was a comment there that no Asian country has yet allowed gay marriage. That's relevant but not destiny. Look at South Africa. It's also not as if the issue isn't coming up in Asia:

http://asiasociety.org/blog/asia/video-philippines-president-open-minded-gay-marriage-unsure-about-gay-adoption

I think for Islamic countries in the region, Malaysia and Indonesia, pretty much ... never.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[thaifkrlim]

Current WESTERN Gay People's Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand - a more precise thread title

[Jingthing]

Current WESTERN Gay People's Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand - a more precise thread title

No that is totally wrong. This poll is in the general forum for the GENERAL membership, which is of course, mostly NOT gay. Gay people being a tiny minority everywhere of course need the support of the general public to change discriminatory laws at the state levels. Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[catmac]

Jingthing, you'll have to stop doing these polls, my dear, as they are making me into a nervous wreck!

No, not the actual poll question, that was easy. I voted option 2 for exactly the reason given by Isaanbirder.

No, what has shattered me is that I found myself in total agreement with Bendix's posts for the first time ever!

[Jingthing]

The second choice of course translates into separate but equal. Would you also prefer separate water fountains?

BTW, can anyone find a poll of the Thai population on this topic? That sure would be interesting.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[catmac]

The second choice of course translates into separate but equal. Would you also prefer separate water fountains?

BTW, can anyone find a poll of the Thai population on this topic? That sure would be interesting.

I think you are overlooking the religious overtones of the word Marriage, and how it has always been involved with the obligations of parenthood.

I, for one, would not want anything to do with a religious institution - my purely personal view, and one that others would be free to disagree with. A properly registered Civil Partnership would have given me all the rights that we need, in much the same way as hetrosexual couples may choose to marry in a Civil Regisry Office rather than opting for a religious service, but without upsetting the religious fringe. I do sometimes feel that the more agressive "gay-righters" seem to take pleasure from pushing points to the extreme just to provoke the opposition.

[thaifkrlim]

Generally hetero people find no enthusiasm in initiating discussion about anything gayish and legalising same sex marriage in another country to boot

[Jingthing]

Marriage is typically a CIVIL law issue anyway! There is no obligation to go through a religious body (usually) unless in theocratic states. Heterosexuals marrying have no requirement (generally) to be fertile, sexually active, to produce children, or to even be heterosexual. Some people get married for tax reasons, to get on the spouse's health insurance program, to participate in the spouses travel benefits (airline workers), etc. States don't get involved in heterosexual people's marriage motivations, worthy or not.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Generally hetero people find no enthusiasm in initiating discussion about anything gayish and legalising same sex marriage in another country to boot

I find that really isn't so much the case.

[Scott]

A particularly nasty post has been deleted and the poster has been suspended. Out of necessity, replies to the post have been deleted or edited.

[Jingthing]

Currently, about 75 percent support EITHER legal gay marriage in Thailand or civil unions, separate but equal. Now I'm curious what the results would be with a more simple poll structure question.

Legal gay marriage in Thailand? Yes or No.

[meand]

Marriage is none of the governments business. Get rid of the government defining, sanctifying, and tracking marriages. People should be free to define a marriage as whatever they want it to be. I think it would be nice if the government stayed out of peoples lives, but the will of the people in our generation is to take away freedoms and be more regulated. Gay marriage may have a chance of becoming legal, but what about polygamy and others. It's not fair to discriminate like this. Remember someone in Thailand married a snake and had a ceremony which was big news and became a movie.

Sorry Canopy,

But it is not that simple.

The legal union of two people is the governments concern,

"Marriage"is a a bilateral contract that two people enter in to, and it defines the responsibilities that each person has toward each other and toward the rest of society. All concern have to perform based on their responsibilities, and when they fail to perform, the contract becomes a non-performing contract and is subject to dissolution.

Such contractual arrangement can only be entered in to by consenting adults,,

children, animals fruit, and vegetables , can not enter in to a legal y binding contract

The Government as the elected representative of society,and has every right to regulate the legal aspects of this contractual agreement.

What it does not have is the right, or the ability to define the human condition,whether that human condition pertains to heterosexual or homosexual relationships. Only nature has that ability.

The Gay community , and rightly so, does not want governments to define the nature of homosexual relationships,yet in a strange to me way, want government to define the nature of heterosexual relationships.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the human condition, but, assuming I understand correctly, there have been scientists who have put forth theories that gay genes could possibly be passed on generation to generation by way of altruism -- in other words, a mechanism that would be viable by way of helping a group as a whole (as opposed to passing the genes sexually/individually). So again, if I understand you correctly, being gay could be part of the "human condition". Of course, since there is really no way to say for certain if this is true or not, it doesn't help anybody under your argument.... but the important point being, the human condition isn't necessarily confined to man with woman.

Edited May 12, 2012 by meand

[isanbirder]

When we talk about the various names given to a possible union (marriage, civil union, civil partnership), we have to be careful we're not short-changed. Anything less than full equal rights is not acceptable to gays. I think I'm being fair to you, JT, in saying that your main reason for insistence on the word marriage, from your US experience, is simply that... that you don't want anything less than equal rights.

But you cannot insist that non-Americans follow your narrowly American view; this would be counter-productive.

[Jingthing]

When we talk about the various names given to a possible union (marriage, civil union, civil partnership), we have to be careful we're not short-changed. Anything less than full equal rights is not acceptable to gays. I think I'm being fair to you, JT, in saying that your main reason for insistence on the word marriage, from your US experience, is simply that... that you don't want anything less than equal rights.

But you cannot insist that non-Americans follow your narrowly American view; this would be counter-productive.

I 100 percent reject your point there. Just yesterday, the PM of New Zealand (not America the last time I checked) a country with legal same sex civil unions said he had no objection to legal gay MARRIAGE in N.Z. No. This separate but equal controversy is in no conceivable way limited to the USA. This has come up pretty much everywhere in the world where progress is being made for equal civil rights for gay people. I know you have a personal objection to legal gay marriage using the word marriage, but don't for one second believe this is only an American issue.

http://www.abc.net.a...arriage/4005022

New Zealand currently allows same-sex civil unions. However, many in the gay community say they want "marriage equality" and anything other than a marriage is less than equal.

I think I have proven my point here decisively.

Obviously, each country as at a different stage with different legal systems. Some countries will never get beyond criminalization of homosexuality. Some countries will progress to full equality (separate but equal is absolutely NOT full equality). There is no logical way anyone can assert forcing different classes of people to use a different word translates as FULL equality. By definition, it is short of it.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I'm against using the word marriage for religious reasons, which is why I voted for JT's second alternative, the civil union, or, as it is known in Britain, civil partnership. We do need the rights, for reasons of tax, inheritance, rights of access when one partner is incapacitated, even the right to dispose of the partner's body when he dies. I have grim experience of this in Thailand; I won't go into detail, but it took me a fortnight to secure the rights to dispose of his body (with the morgue ringing up daily saying, 'We can't keep it much longer!").

The US has screwed this issue up by having different systems in different states, hence JT's distinction between marriage and civil union.

But, being pragmatic, as I've said on the Gay Forum, the word marriage is going to be used for this union whatever the laws call it. Language, like water, takes the easiest path.

But the religious concept of marriage has nothing to do with the legal/financial, tax consequences etc.

And gays fight for specific cult's acceptance is only relevant for those few that care about that particular sect.

IMO a complete side issue, like battling for women to become priests, or more pink and chartreuse coloured frappes at Starbucks just for a frivolous extreme example.

No the real battle is for government recognition of the legal contract, things like hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance and other benefits.

And IMO that's all that's worth discussing here, leave the flying spaghetti monsters alone for another day.

[h90]

Pesonally i do not care what two men or women get up to sexually in the privacy of their own home,up to them ,but as to getting married or adopting ,no way , marriage and adoption is for couples of the opposit sex as nature intended.

I agree to some rights, if one is in the hospital and someone needs to make a decision than the partner should be allowed to, or at inheritance.

But adopting: no way.....

In Austria the children in school must read gay stories to learn that it is normal.....sick, or?

[thenervoussurgeon]

Pesonally i do not care what two men or women get up to sexually in the privacy of their own home,up to them ,but as to getting married or adopting ,no way , marriage and adoption is for couples of the opposit sex as nature intended.

Could you explain how 'nature intended' relates to marriage? How many other species marry?

If your argument against gay marriage is based on the notion that gay relationships or gay sex is unnatural, define what you mean by natural. How can any sexual act that happens naturally between two people not be rooted in nature?

If your argument is that it's unnatural because gay sex doesn't lead to procreation, I would be interested in your views on oral and anal sex between a man and a woman. Are they also unnatural?

yes i do believe it is unnatural,and we are not "other Species" because they also have sexual relations with juvenile animals,do you advocate that? i don't think so ,we as a species cannot ever be equated to other life ,we are different .

if we had been made to have sexual relations with other members of our own sex ,then why would we have evolved to procreate?

but as i have said before ,i do not care if you want to have sex with a member of your own sex ,up to you as long as i don't have to watch.or participate.

[BookMan]

Pesonally i do not care what two men or women get up to sexually in the privacy of their own home,up to them ,but as to getting married or adopting ,no way , marriage and adoption is for couples of the opposit sex as nature intended.

I agree to some rights, if one is in the hospital and someone needs to make a decision than the partner should be allowed to, or at inheritance.

But adopting: no way.....

In Austria the children in school must read gay stories to learn that it is normal.....sick, or?

I don't have any problems with gay marriage or any type of marriage. It isn't for me but if it that is what you want go for it.

I also don't have any problem with gay couples adopting. Plenty of kids out there in the world languishing in homes who would love to be adopted by a parent/parents who would love them and take care of them. Being heterosexual does not give you any special guidance in loving or taking care of children.

[isanbirder]

No the real battle is for government recognition of the legal contract, things like hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance and other benefits.

This is what I was saying. I am afraid that if we get distracted by semantics, we shall overlook the fact that some forms of union do not give gays full equal rights. But in the long run, as language evolves, the word for this union will be marriage. I see the way forward as not battling over what we call it, but making sure we get the full deal.

Some poster while I was typing this spoke against sexual relations between members of the same sex. This is not the subject of this thread, but needs to be dealt with.

Gay people live together like hetero couples, sharing their lives, their joys and their sorrows. The sexual part is, as I believe it is in any stable relationship, a relatively small part of the whole. Some posters' insistence on the sexual component brings into question the stability of their own partnerships, if any.

[Jingthing]

...

The sexual part is, as I believe it is in any stable relationship, a relatively small part of the whole.

...

Sad but true.

[Jingthing]

...

The Gay community , and rightly so, does not want governments to define the nature of homosexual relationships,yet in a strange to me way, want government to define the nature of heterosexual relationships.

I would probably be ready with a pithy rebuttal of your point there IF I had the foggiest notion what your point actually was.

In other words it's really news to me that the "gay community" is out to define the nature of heterosexual relationships.

Back to the Thai issue here, have the majority of Thai gays actually thought about this issue and want legal marriage equality in Thailand, similar to South Africa? I don't really know, but I would guess ... no, they aren't there yet.

In countries where there is activism and/or success on this issue, I would say the goal is simply legal equality for all citizens, including gays, not redefining anything.

Honestly, the reason I care so much about this issue for my home country is less about the right to legally marry and more about the self esteem/full societal inclusion of future generations of gay people. I don't want future generations to grow up thinking they are a first class citizen like anyone else and later learn when they discover they are gay, that under the law, they aren't. Similar to religious freedom, racial equality, etc. I think most gay people won't choose to enter marriage contracts, but what's important is that everyone have the exact same legal rights.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[bendix]

Pesonally i do not care what two men or women get up to sexually in the privacy of their own home,up to them ,but as to getting married or adopting ,no way , marriage and adoption is for couples of the opposit sex as nature intended.

Could you explain how 'nature intended' relates to marriage? How many other species marry?

If your argument against gay marriage is based on the notion that gay relationships or gay sex is unnatural, define what you mean by natural. How can any sexual act that happens naturally between two people not be rooted in nature?

If your argument is that it's unnatural because gay sex doesn't lead to procreation, I would be interested in your views on oral and anal sex between a man and a woman. Are they also unnatural?

yes i do believe it is unnatural,and we are not "other Species" because they also have sexual relations with juvenile animals,do you advocate that? i don't think so ,we as a species cannot ever be equated to other life ,we are different .

if we had been made to have sexual relations with other members of our own sex ,then why would we have evolved to procreate?

but as i have said before ,i do not care if you want to have sex with a member of your own sex ,up to you as long as i don't have to watch.or participate.

That you are so openminded as to not care if a person has sex with someone of the same gender. It begs the question though - why do you care if they get married?

Saying a couple can't marry because of their sexual orientation is no different from saying they can't marry because of their race or creed.

Btw, I'm straight and married to mrs Bendix.

[isanbirder]

In countries where there is activism and/or success on this issue, I would say the goal is simply legal equality for all citizens, including gays, not redefining anything.

Honestly, the reason I care so much about this issue for my home country is less about the right to legally marry and more about the self esteem/full societal inclusion of future generations of gay people. I don't want future generations to grow up thinking they are a first class citizen like anyone else and later learn when they discover they are gay, that under the law, they aren't. Similar to religious freedom, racial equality, etc. I think most gay people won't choose to enter marriage contracts, but what's important is that everyone have the exact same legal rights.

At last. you've said something I can completely agree on! The bit I've blocked is precisely what I've been trying to say all along.