Poll: Current Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand

[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.

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.c...orldwide-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."

I have to tell you that the pronouncements of President Obama cut no ice with the gay boys of Uttaradit or Thum Salieng. The only thing that rekindles Natee's fire is the possibility of a bit more self-publicity.

[theblether]

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.

Jingthing lifted an entirely domestic US story and attempted to weld it onto Thailand.

The concept of the US being a world leader on this issue is absurd.

[Scott]

Just to be clear, I believe the poll is about gay marriage in Thailand and not necessarily about politics in the US.

[bendix]

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.

Spot on. I live how this thread has exposed the inherent bigotism of so many members who, of course, attempt to cover their hateful attitude with the caveat that they're not against what people do in private but . . .

The irony is they don't see the logical contradiction in that line. They have nothing against gays, they are saying, but they don't think they should have the same legal rights as others.

Freakin geniuses abound on Thaivisa.

[theblether]

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.

Spot on. I live how this thread has exposed the inherent bigotism of so many members who, of course, attempt to cover their hateful attitude with the caveat that they're not against what people do in private but . . .

The irony is they don't see the logical contradiction in that line. They have nothing against gays, they are saying, but they don't think they should have the same legal rights as others.

Freakin geniuses abound on Thaivisa.

Just to lift the mood a little bit, I have a gay friend who was one of the first wave to go through a civil union in Scotland.

This gentleman is from the Western Isles, he now lives in the West End of Glasgow, he's a very effervescent personality. He is a Lay Prayer in his local church, and he says he gets very little negativity from his fellow members of his congregation. In my opinion the media set out to find the controversial, and so sully the good name and goodwill of everyone.

Anyway, the story goes, on the second anniversary of the civil union my pal set up a romantic dinner for him and his man. During the dinner his man announced that the union was over and he was going for a divorce and half of the house etc.

My pal was devastated, came into the pub, hammered the whisky and announced at the top of his voice, 'to think I went on protest marches to give that bastard the right to half my house'.

Silence ensued in the pub for about 10 seconds, then the whole pub fell about laughing. It was one of those perfect moments.

Edited May 13, 2012 by theblether

[BigJohnnyBKK]

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.

Actually in many ancient societies gay relationships were openly tolerated, and many also allowed for marriage. At one time even the Catholic church did so, several of its saints were openly gay.

Our cultural intolerance is a relatively recent aberration and stems specifically from the views of conservative orthodox subsets of Judeo-Christianity - repressive regimes have always tried to control various aspects of human sexuality, usually with negative results.

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

Arab nations have a long and honorable tradition of buggery, much like that of the Greeks.

Were you aware that Iran not only tolerates transsexuality, not only allows gender reassignment surgery, but that the mullah-led government actually subsidises it?

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?

No, homosexuals are in the minority, but are just as "normal" as say red hair.

Gays usually make wonderful parents, often much better than the average hetero couple. They should be allowed to adopt just like single people.

Edited May 13, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[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.

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?

Let me get this right. You are so beneficent as to think that gay people are allowed some rights that you enjoy but not all? That is very noble of you but how do you decide what rights they should have and what rights you think appropriate to deny them?

Do you think the same about black people? Perhaps they can be allowe to marry ( but only amongst themselves) but not to eat in the same restaurants.

And how about people with red hair?

[kerryk]

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!

Some even like Pattaya!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Why should same sex couples settle for less? Unless you're talking about downgrading all marriages to civil unions. Then you'd have equality.

I would agree with that. I think the state has no business meddling in any kind of marriage. If they must have specific tax laws for teams of two or more people then make it a civil union (or tax union if you will) and let it apply to everyone who wants a tax union with any other person(s) of any gender.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Let me get this right. You are so beneficent as to think that gay people are allowed some rights that you enjoy but not all?

Well, wait. Gay people have the same rights and limitations straight people. A straight man can't marry another man either, so it's not like gays are discriminated against. If straight people WERE allowed to marry men than that would indeed be discrimination.

Edited May 13, 2012 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Jingthing]

Let me get this right. You are so beneficent as to think that gay people are allowed some rights that you enjoy but not all?

Well, wait. Gay people have the same rights and limitations straight people. A straight man can't marry another man either, so it's not like gays are discriminated against. If straight people WERE allowed to marry men than that would indeed be discrimination.

What a silly, tired old, ridiculous argument. Hetero people are allowed to marry the person they love. Homosexual people are not. That is not equality. That is discrimination by definition. How about this idea to make it equal? Hetero people allowed only to marry same sex. Homosexual people allowed only to marry opposite sex (status quo). There's your equality.

[Jingthing]

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.

Actually in many ancient societies gay relationships were openly tolerated, and many also allowed for marriage. At one time even the Catholic church did so, several of its saints were openly gay.

Our cultural intolerance is a relatively recent aberration and stems specifically from the views of conservative orthodox subsets of Judeo-Christianity - repressive regimes have always tried to control various aspects of human sexuality, usually with negative results.

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

Arab nations have a long and honorable tradition of buggery, much like that of the Greeks.

Were you aware that Iran not only tolerates transsexuality, not only allows gender reassignment surgery, but that the mullah-led government actually subsidises it?

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?

No, homosexuals are in the minority, but are just as "normal" as say red hair.

Gays usually make wonderful parents, often much better than the average hetero couple. They should be allowed to adopt just like single people.

Yes I am aware of the situation in Iran for gays.

Gay people live in fear of their lives.

Homosexual sex is illegal under their Islamic inspired law.

Some gays have been executed under the law and many more executed through informal killings. The numbers are impossible to tell as it is not something the government wants publicized internationally.

Many Iranian gays seek to escape Iran as refugees for the reason their life as gay people is not tenable in Iran.

Some normal gay male Iranians with no gender issues have voluntarily decided to submit to having their genitals cut off, because yes, then they can be allowed to live in Iran and even have a legal sex life.

"Tolerance" for men who reassign as women is NOT the same thing as tolerance for gay people in general and in no way indicates Iran is on the path of legal same sex marriage. The so called tolerance when it comes to normal gay men actually translates into a horrible barbarism; imagine having the choice to cut off your genitals (when that isn't your wish) or death.

No, not all Islamic countries are as bad as Iran on this issue, but to suggest that any of them are on a path towards legal same sex marriage is utterly ridiculous.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

In response in general to some of the sniping flavored comments here:

1. I never said nor have I ever thought that the USA is the leader in same sex marriage rights. It is obviously behind the curve of a number of countries.

2. When Obama makes news, as president of the country which has

- the largest economy on the planet

- the most powerful military on the planet

- arguably the most influence globally on the pop culture front

- a large country both geographically and in population, etc.

- home of the primary global reserve currency

it makes an international impact in a way that a statement from the President of Bolivia (for example) simply does not.

No, the USA is not the only important country in the world but most objective observers would still say it is still the most important one currently.

Note I said most important country. Not best country.

So when a president of the USA makes an historic announcement about a social issue that is important in many countries of the world (some ahead of the USA, some behind it) yes of course it is definitely news.

Also, of course, Obama in particular is quite popular in particular as world leader, and at the very least someone who is known by name by most of the world:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/93997-poll-obama-most-popular-world-leader

As I expected it is also reported in the THAI press. Does that mean there will suddenly be a massive drive of Thai gay people to work on this issue? As I said before, I don't really think so. But one never knows. Is legal same sex marriage desirable in Thailand as it is desirable in Argentina? Yes, I think so just as I think its a good thing there is health care available in Thailand and traffic lights. It isn't cultural imperialism to have opinions about what is good or not. It would be cultural imperialism to FORCE your values on a foreign people, and as we know, that doesn't play in Thailand!

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[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.

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.

First, if I understand that wiki definition right, it doesn't seem to support you, stating that the human condition is not connected to gender.

I covered all those points you brought up in my initial post. In short, "gay genes" (there has to be a better term than that ) could in fact be passed on from one generation to the next, so this can in fact be very natural and part of the human condition. I would even argue that it probably is. Sexual reproduction is not the only way to pass on genes. This is part of the theory that the scientist John Nash came up with in a beautiful mind if you are interested.

Any organism is made up of a certain percentage of its mother/father, brothers/sisters. That number would be at 50% in those cases. If you make it possible for 4 of your brothers to live by saving their lives (this is an extreme example), then you just effectively passed on two of yourself that would not have otherwise been there. Scientists were interested long ago why animals exhibited behaviors that were not selfish in nature (=altruistic). They came to the conclusion that these altruistic behaviors could be explained by this mechanism. If you aren't already following, the way this all relates is that in our history these gay individuals could have been helping the group as a whole, and passing on their genes without sexual reproduction. In such, they would in fact be part of the human condition. So, if an alien came down to earth and told us the truth about the "human condition" as it relates to this topic, it may look something like this: sexual reproduction between male and female accounts for 98% of the passing of genes; while individuals who don't reproduce (= have gay genes) account for 2% of the passing of genes. In other words, it could be (likely is imo) part of the human condition. Who knows what the actual percentages are, but even if they are very low, say .01% you'd still have to grant gay people equal rights under your "human condition" argument. And you obviously couldn't say "only .01% of the population can marry," it would have to apply to as many as wanted.

In short, if you don't want to read all that, there are very strong possibilities that having gay members in any human populations is very much part of the "human condition."

Edited May 13, 2012 by meand

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Let me get this right. You are so beneficent as to think that gay people are allowed some rights that you enjoy but not all?

Well, wait. Gay people have the same rights and limitations straight people. A straight man can't marry another man either, so it's not like gays are discriminated against. If straight people WERE allowed to marry men than that would indeed be discrimination.

What a silly, tired old, ridiculous argument. Hetero people are allowed to marry the person they love. Homosexual people are not. That is not equality. That is discrimination by definition. How about this idea to make it equal? Hetero people allowed only to marry same sex. Homosexual people allowed only to marry opposite sex (status quo). There's your equality.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

No, not all Islamic countries are as bad as Iran on this issue, but to suggest that any of them are on a path towards legal same sex marriage is utterly ridiculous.

OK, fair enough, but never say never, I personally think the concept of nationhood will itself disappear within a few hundred years.

And just out of curiosity, it is it the case that other Islamic countries define marriage between a man and a post-op trans as hetero and therefore acceptable?

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

I have no idea what this idea of "civil union" might be, unless it's going to just be a secret code word for "non-mainstream marriage". Marriage for legal purposes, which defines tax/employment benefits etc, is defined by the government.

A village or church ceremony, having it sanctified by the flying spaghetti monster or whatever, has nothing to do with anything important, or at least the issue only concerns those gays that believe in such nonsense.

IMO people that haven't registered their marriage legally aren't actually married for the purposes of this discussion, no matter what their culture or family or religion might have to say about it.

Edited May 13, 2012 by BigJohnnyBKK

[nocturn]

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!

but, as usual, it is the 'moral' minority who squeal loudest against.

[Banzai99]

[sirineou]

In short, if you don't want to read all that, there are very strong possibilities that having gay members in any human populations is very much part of the "human condition."

Who said that it isn't?

There are many things that are part of the human condition that might not be conducive ti it's well being.

I give up!!!

[Jingthing]

Regarding the Ricky Gervais video and the "politics of disgust" aspect of it around anal sex, keep in mind that a significant percentage of gay men do not enjoy anal sex and/or may stop practicing it at different stages of life. Then of course as we know many heterosexual people indulge in it as well. No disrespect to anal sex intended.

http://www.slate.com..._seriously.html

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[samran]

@ endure. That would be hetrosexual economist who is hardly a lefty.

But I digress, I smell a troll with the nervous whatshisface.

[cdnvic]

Removed a flame, and quotes of it. Please refrain from name calling. We're all supposed to be adults here.

[theblether]

In response in general to some of the sniping flavored comments here:

1. I never said nor have I ever thought that the USA is the leader in same sex marriage rights. It is obviously behind the curve of a number of countries.

2. When Obama makes news, as president of the country which has

- the largest economy on the planet

- the most powerful military on the planet

- arguably the most influence globally on the pop culture front

- a large country both geographically and in population, etc.

- home of the primary global reserve currency

it makes an international impact in a way that a statement from the President of Bolivia (for example) simply does not.

No, the USA is not the only important country in the world but most objective observers would still say it is still the most important one currently.

Note I said most important country. Not best country.

So when a president of the USA makes an historic announcement about a social issue that is important in many countries of the world (some ahead of the USA, some behind it) yes of course it is definitely news.

Also, of course, Obama in particular is quite popular in particular as world leader, and at the very least someone who is known by name by most of the world:

http://thehill.com/b...ar-world-leader

As I expected it is also reported in the THAI press. Does that mean there will suddenly be a massive drive of Thai gay people to work on this issue? As I said before, I don't really think so. But one never knows. Is legal same sex marriage desirable in Thailand as it is desirable in Argentina? Yes, I think so just as I think its a good thing there is health care available in Thailand and traffic lights. It isn't cultural imperialism to have opinions about what is good or not. It would be cultural imperialism to FORCE your values on a foreign people, and as we know, that doesn't play in Thailand!

Jingthing it was you that mentioned Barack Obama in the OP, if you mention something in the OP you should expect people to comment on it.

Try to control yourself and keep US domestic politics out of topics.

[Jingthing]

In response in general to some of the sniping flavored comments here:

1. I never said nor have I ever thought that the USA is the leader in same sex marriage rights. It is obviously behind the curve of a number of countries.

2. When Obama makes news, as president of the country which has

- the largest economy on the planet

- the most powerful military on the planet

- arguably the most influence globally on the pop culture front

- a large country both geographically and in population, etc.

- home of the primary global reserve currency

it makes an international impact in a way that a statement from the President of Bolivia (for example) simply does not.

No, the USA is not the only important country in the world but most objective observers would still say it is still the most important one currently.

Note I said most important country. Not best country.

So when a president of the USA makes an historic announcement about a social issue that is important in many countries of the world (some ahead of the USA, some behind it) yes of course it is definitely news.

Also, of course, Obama in particular is quite popular in particular as world leader, and at the very least someone who is known by name by most of the world:

http://thehill.com/b...ar-world-leader

As I expected it is also reported in the THAI press. Does that mean there will suddenly be a massive drive of Thai gay people to work on this issue? As I said before, I don't really think so. But one never knows. Is legal same sex marriage desirable in Thailand as it is desirable in Argentina? Yes, I think so just as I think its a good thing there is health care available in Thailand and traffic lights. It isn't cultural imperialism to have opinions about what is good or not. It would be cultural imperialism to FORCE your values on a foreign people, and as we know, that doesn't play in Thailand!

Jingthing it was you that mentioned Barack Obama in the OP, if you mention something in the OP you should expect people to comment on it.

Try to control yourself and keep US domestic politics out of topics.

Sure you can comment on it. But when GROSSLY distort what someone has said, expect some pushback!

[theblether]

Al Jazeera has reported in the last few minutes that Mitt Romney has come out against Gay Marriage in the US. Now we really are getting mired into US domestic politics, and I think the OP was ill advised to intoduce this political aspect to this debate.

The OP may not be aware of the deep fury felt by two of the greatest allies of the US this week, believed to be caused by a direct reaction to the statement by Barack Obama in regards to this issue. I will not derail the topic by referring openly to the issue, as the topic will degenerate into a UK v US flame fest. Unfortunately in this case the US has already held it's hands up and is deeply embarressed by the issue. If anyone wants to know the issue they can pm me.

For the record I believe in equal rights under the law for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, creed and colour. Full stop.

Edited May 13, 2012 by theblether

[Jingthing]

I stand by this topic, the OP (the actual OP rather the bizarre twisting of its meaning by Mr. Blether), and its relation to THAILAND if you don't agree, PM a moderator.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Semper]

*Deleted quote edited out*

Granting equal rights is not privileged status.

I would be curious to see any surveys done of the Thai public on this issue. I know Thai gay activists haven't been very ... active ... about this, but I reckon eventually that is likely to happen when you consider countries as diverse as Argentina and South Africa have gone for full legalization.

What's the point? Marriage is only a piece of paper .

Edited May 13, 2012 by Semper

[Jingthing]

This thread is a poll of the membership here about the question of legalizing same sex marriage in Thailand. Yes, same sex marriage is an issue in many countries, but right here, this is about the issue in Thailand.

If people would like to discuss the U.S. political aspect in the wake of the Obama announcement, there is a designated active place to do that right now:

[wannascuba]

This thread got me thinking.

Do the people here who advocate Gay Marriage due to equal rights, do you also advocate Multiplie Partner marriage?

[Jingthing]

This thread got me thinking.

Do the people here who advocate Gay Marriage due to equal rights, do you also advocate Multiplie Partner marriage?

That would be a separate poll, but I think, mostly no. They are not the same thing. Right now opposite sex COUPLES may marry. Same sex COUPLES may not marry. It follows that for equality for COUPLES, same sex couples should be allowed. Adding more people than a couple is an entirely different issue. This is typical though. What's the next question? Why not allow marriage to a horse?