Poll: Current Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand

[sirineou]

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.

Quote from Wikipedia "The human condition encompasses the unique and believed to be inescapable features of being human in a social, cultural, and personal context. It can be described as the irreducible part of humanity that is inherent and not connected to factors such as gender, race or class."

I am not sure of the mechanism that causes some one to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. It could be genetic, or it could be something that occurs during the first few weeks of the development of a fetus where sexual differentiation takes place, and physical development might go one way, but the brain wiring that determines sexual preference go an other way. Either way it is not a personal choice, and one should not be punished for something they can not help, nor should some one with homosexual tendencies should have to compromise their lives to satisfy some one else s homophobic tendencies

Having said that , at the most basic level, the "human condition" is geared toward passing once genes

The question has being asked "what came first, the Egg or the chicken" the answer is simple, The Egg, the chicken is simple the eggs Idea of making an other Egg.

If you accepted this proposition, (and there is substantial scientific support for this proposition) then you have to except that homosexuality, though part of the "human condition", is not conducive to basic human, or for that case any other animals, long term survival, and anything that is not conducive towards the long term survival of any organism, is a aberration.

Non the less a small percentage of the human population, and for no fault of their own, would be homosexual. And accommodations must be made for these people to live happy productive ,lives. and for as, to benefit from the unique perspective .

​But to change the institution of marriage , an institution that has developed,through thousands of years of social evolution , as a system best suited for the long term survival of humanity, would be a mistake in my opinion.

A civil Union with all the protections under the law would be a better way

Sorry for the cursory explanation of my position, it is a subject that would take much more time than I have to invest in this forum.I hope I did not confuse more than explain.

[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.

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.

To be honest i am sick of forever listening to gays going on about gay rights ,gay parades and all the other boll-cks that minority groups bang on about, to my mind if someone wants to s--g someone of the same sex ,get on with it and shut the <deleted>> up.

i do not care what they want to do ,just do it and dont go on and on and on and on

[Jingthing]

That's the point. In most of the world today, if two people of the same sex want to marry OR enter a civil union, it doesn't matter what they want to do. They cannot do it. You might not care, that's your choice, but you can't expect the people being discriminated against not to care.

[Jingthing]

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.

Of course, as you well know, in my view and I am hardly alone, the same legal rights means being to enter into the exact same legal institutions, with the exact same name -- marriage in most countries, give or take some translation issues. Separate but equal is by definition not fully equal. Of course I would agree civil unions are better than nothing! But its just a stepping stone.

[Scott]

Quote:

To be honest i am sick of forever listening to gays going on about gay rights ,gay parades and all the other boll-cks that minority groups bang on about, to my mind if someone wants to s--g someone of the same sex ,get on with it and shut the <deleted>> up.

i do not care what they want to do ,just do it and dont go on and on and on and on

Reading the thread, posting or participating in the discussion is optional. We do not wish to damage anyone's health.

[thaifkrlim]

time to move the thread

[Jingthing]

time to move the thread

The idea was to poll the general population so I certainly hope the thread is not moved to the Football/Soccer forum.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[mauGR1]

Well, i have nothing against gay relationships, but the marriage thing looks like a joke, seriously..

I may be wrong, but i think the marriage institution was created for the sake of the offsprings, and in fact is quite debatable whether the human race is a monogamous one..

If it's only for legal rights, well , go for it, i think the lawyers will be happy at least.

[Jingthing]

Well, i have nothing against gay relationships, but the marriage thing looks like a joke, seriously..

I may be wrong, but i think the marriage institution was created for the sake of the offsprings, and in fact is quite debatable whether the human race is a monogamous one..

If it's only for legal rights, well , go for it, i think the lawyers will be happy at least.

So opposite sex marriages where one or both partners are infertile or there is no intention to have children should not be allowed to be married either, is that you're idea? Joke? What's the punch line?

[thaifkrlim]

time to move the thread

The idea was to poll the general population so I certainly hope the thread is not moved to the Football/Soccer forum.

The general pop dont give a hoot about you intending to marry a male and the relationship details, therefore i suggest moving this thread to the appropriate forum section will certainly help you gain more support to your ambitious notion on legalising gay marriages

[Jingthing]

time to move the thread

The idea was to poll the general population so I certainly hope the thread is not moved to the Football/Soccer forum.

The general pop dont give a hoot about you intending to marry a male and the relationship details, therefore i suggest moving this thread to the appropriate forum section will certainly help you gain more support to your ambitious notion on legalising gay marriages

Actually the thread was started to gauge opinion of the general public here, not a specialized public. In any country, this is an issue for the general public as any small minority, especially an unpopular one like gay people, can never win any battles all by themselves.

[mauGR1]

Well, i have nothing against gay relationships, but the marriage thing looks like a joke, seriously..

I may be wrong, but i think the marriage institution was created for the sake of the offsprings, and in fact is quite debatable whether the human race is a monogamous one..

If it's only for legal rights, well , go for it, i think the lawyers will be happy at least.

So opposite sex marriages where one or both partners are infertile or there is no intention to have children should not be allowed to be married either, is that you're idea? Joke? What's the punch line?

Are you saying that if tomorrow i want to marry my gf, we should have a mandatory fertility test ?

[Jingthing]

Well, i have nothing against gay relationships, but the marriage thing looks like a joke, seriously..

I may be wrong, but i think the marriage institution was created for the sake of the offsprings, and in fact is quite debatable whether the human race is a monogamous one..

If it's only for legal rights, well , go for it, i think the lawyers will be happy at least.

So opposite sex marriages where one or both partners are infertile or there is no intention to have children should not be allowed to be married either, is that you're idea? Joke? What's the punch line?

Are you saying that if tomorrow i want to marry my gf, we should have a mandatory fertility test ?

No, I'm saying if you're going to enforce the fertility test to gay couples, it's only fair to enforce it on hetero couples.

[mauGR1]

Well, i have nothing against gay relationships, but the marriage thing looks like a joke, seriously..

I may be wrong, but i think the marriage institution was created for the sake of the offsprings, and in fact is quite debatable whether the human race is a monogamous one..

If it's only for legal rights, well , go for it, i think the lawyers will be happy at least.

So opposite sex marriages where one or both partners are infertile or there is no intention to have children should not be allowed to be married either, is that you're idea? Joke? What's the punch line?

Are you saying that if tomorrow i want to marry my gf, we should have a mandatory fertility test ?

No, I'm saying if you're going to enforce the fertility test to gay couples, it's only fair to enforce it on hetero couples.

Well. I never said that..In general i am against enforcing anything..But i still think gay marriage is a joke..and i have nothing against gays.

Edited May 12, 2012 by mauGR1

[thenervoussurgeon]

not a million years ago you could have sex with a 12 year old girl legally. and go to prison for having sex with another man ,now you go to prison for having sex with a 12 year old girl and can roger another man with no worries,funny old world isnt it.

Edited May 12, 2012 by thenervoussurgeon

[Jingthing]

not a million years ago you could have sex with a 12 year old girl and go to prison for having sexwith another man ,now you go to prison for having sex with a 12 year old girl and can roger another man with no worries,funny old world isnt it.

Our species didn't exist a million years ago.

[Jingthing]

Well. I never said that..In general i am against enforcing anything..But i still think gay marriage is a joke..and i have nothing against gays.

I get it. Joke as in funny, ha ha? Well, its legal in a number of nations now. I guess the lawmakers are real comedians.

BTW, looking at the results, it's a pretty liberal crowd here. So if the Thais ever decide to go in this direction, they won't have to worry about foreigners giving them much flack about it!

Edited May 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[mauGR1]

Well. I never said that..In general i am against enforcing anything..But i still think gay marriage is a joke..and i have nothing against gays.

I get it. Joke as in funny, ha ha? Well, its legal in a number of nations now. I guess the lawmakers are real comedians.

BTW, looking at the results, it's a pretty liberal crowd here. So if the Thais ever decide to go in this direction, they won't have to worry about foreigners giving them much flack about it!

Well , real comedians often make me laugh, while lawmakers often make me angry..

But , about gay marriage, i wonder what the goal is, in fact i have the feeling that the marriage thing in general is on decline already, seen the couples often divorcing within 1 year, in some extreme case after 1 night . And from what i hear, gay relationships tend to be more open than the hetero relationships.

Like i said, gay marriages will make many lawyers happy...

[Jingthing]

...

Like i said, gay marriages will make many lawyers happy...

Cool. A point of agreement.

[thenervoussurgeon]

not a million years ago you could have sex with a 12 year old girl and go to prison for having sexwith another man ,now you go to prison for having sex with a 12 year old girl and can roger another man with no worries,funny old world isnt it.

Our species didn't exist a million years ago.

neither did gays,but i did say NOT A MILLION YEARS AGO.

[endure]

Don't you think there's a whiff of cultural imperialism about this thread? The modern version of bringing civilisation to the heathens? I'm sure that if the Thais want gay marriage they'll make the effort to make it legal.

[nocturn]

my jaw drops, i am gobsmacked.

while i was certainly under the impression that thaivisa was largely populated by a festival of mysogynist bigots, i had no idea how parochial the attitudes here actually were.

I see this as a defining topic, there are those of you who have posted here who have gleefully outed yourselves as painfully intolerant.

kudos to Jingthing for a topic that has allowed me to see many posters here for who they really are.

i would be humiliated to have authored some of the bile i have read here tonight.

[Jingthing]

Don't you think there's a whiff of cultural imperialism about this thread? The modern version of bringing civilisation to the heathens? I'm sure that if the Thais want gay marriage they'll make the effort to make it legal.

No. Endure. I started this thread for a very good reason. Because it was obvious, and also in the global news, that President Obama's announcement was going to have an impact GLOBALLY. Globally includes Thailand. Of course its up to the Thais. I made that crystal clear in my OP.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2012/05/10/obamas-support-energizes-gay-activists-worldwide-220761

Natee Teerarojjanapongs, a gay activist from Chiang Mai, Thailand, was more excited. Though Thailand is often seen as gay-friendly by tourists, Thai society is conservative and there has been little support for expanding gay rights in the Southeast Asian country.

"I was starting to lose hope in fighting for gay marriage legalization in Thailand," Natee said, "but now Barack Obama's endorsement is rekindling my fire and is giving me the encouragement to go on."

[David48]

seriously, who gives a shit?

love the one you are with.

But what if I am standing next to you?

[samran]

my jaw drops, i am gobsmacked.

while i was certainly under the impression that thaivisa was largely populated by a festival of mysogynist bigots, i had no idea how parochial the attitudes here actually were.

I see this as a defining topic, there are those of you who have posted here who have gleefully outed yourselves as painfully intolerant.

kudos to Jingthing for a topic that has allowed me to see many posters here for who they really are.

i would be humiliated to have authored some of the bile i have read here tonight.

It will even be more telling when the same morons characters complain about discrimination in Thailand.

[David48]

I started this thread for a very good reason. Because it was obvious, and also in the global news, that President Obama's announcement was going to have an impact GLOBALLY.

Jingthing, just how do you think what the President of a foreign country 'thinks' will affect the gobal population?

Some look to America and do the opposite.

[samran]

not a million years ago you could have sex with a 12 year old girl legally. and go to prison for having sex with another man ,now you go to prison for having sex with a 12 year old girl and can roger another man with no worries,funny old world isnt it.

Were you simply born without a brain? In that case, your comment would be somewhat understandable.

Regardless of your views of gay marriage, there is one key difference to the above.

In one case, you are talking about the interaction of two adults who are consenting.

You aren't in the other. But, it seems bizzare and sickening that you would even imply that kiddie fiddling is in any possible way, acceptable.

[Jingthing]

I started this thread for a very good reason. Because it was obvious, and also in the global news, that President Obama's announcement was going to have an impact GLOBALLY.

Jingthing, just how do you think what the President of a foreign country 'thinks' will affect the gobal population?

Some look to America and do the opposite.

Not going to touch that way or this will go way off topic. Suffice it to say Obama made an historic announcement and it was not only news in the USA; it was news worldwide.

[David48]

I started this thread for a very good reason. Because it was obvious, and also in the global news, that President Obama's announcement was going to have an impact GLOBALLY.

Jingthing, just how do you think what the President of a foreign country 'thinks' will affect the gobal population?

Some look to America and do the opposite.

Not going to touch that way or this will go way off topic. Suffice it to say Obama made an historic announcement and it was not only news in the USA; it was news worldwide.

Mate, no problem and I wasn't trying to subvert your thread.

Just that you made it your opening line as the OP, hence worthy for comment.

We are currently having a similiar debate in Australia on the issue of Gay Union/marriage.

[theblether]

Jingthing it was news in the UK and many other countries as it was regarded as a joke how Obama did it. The unintended consequences of his administration then trying to balance out his credentials by releasing the details of the MI6 agent has been a humiliation for the US.

The US in some ways is so far behind social thought in areas such as Europe, and the UK, among others, it's a joke. Same sex marriage is yesterdays news in many countries.

The US could also take a lot of lessons from Thailand when it comes to issues of tolerance, especially tolerance of sexual orientation.

Anyway, if same sex marriage was permitted in Thailand, would you get married? Is there a special someone on the horizon for you? It would be the Thaivisa Wedding of the Year. Possibly of the decade.

Ps. I broadly agree with endure's contributions.

Pps take the politicized word 'liberal' out of the equation, I think you will find the greatest percentage of TV members believe in the maxim, 'live and let live'