Poll: Current Views Of Legal Gay Marriage In Thailand

[wannascuba]

Exactly, what is typical?

[Jingthing]

Exactly, what is typical?

Deflecting the issue of gay marriage with some other issue about marriage such as if gays can marry, why can't a man marry a pencil? Usually it's more outlandish than group marriages, but its the same concept. Also called the slippery slope rebuttal.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[wannascuba]

As the overall subject has to do with Marriage, I thought the questions was relevant. I was attempting to possibly learn a little more about a subject that I still do not have a firm conviction on, and can see valid arguments on both sides.

I guess I will sit on the fence a bit longer. My apologies if it came off as a troll post, as that was not my intention.

Ws

[kerryk]

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:

http://www.thaivisa....l/#entry5287109

No JT mods said"Reference need to be on the issue of gay marriage, or rights." In that other thread.

However you did say in the OP of this thread, "Due to President Obama's historic announcement of his support of legal gay marriage in the USA, this issue has become more topical globally (for the moment)."

Maybe you want to re consider?

[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:

http://www.thaivisa....l/#entry5287109

No JT mods said"Reference need to be on the issue of gay marriage, or rights." In that other thread.

However you did say in the OP of this thread, "Due to President Obama's historic announcement of his support of legal gay marriage in the USA, this issue has become more topical globally (for the moment)."

Maybe you want to re consider?

You're splitting hairs, dude. This thread is a poll about Thailand gay marriage. YES ... DUH, the timing was inspired by the Obama announcement which was GLOBAL news. If you want to ask a mod to delete that part of the OP, I really don't care. The details of the other thread, please don't go there ... HERE.

Really, this level of sniping is tiresome. If people have an issue with a thread or topic being off topic, there is report button always there for you.

Otherwise, please keep on track, OK?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Semper]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

[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.

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.

No i was not born without a brain but it seems you were ,ipresume you had my answer deleted ,well here it is again

i did not and never have advocated "kiddie fiddling" what i said was that at in our not to distant past it was "legal" to have sex with a 12 year old girl but you could go to prison for one man having sex with another. Now it is the other way around ,but as usuall minorities twist the words that the majority speak

and by your logic if the law was wrong to allow two men to engagein sex ,were they also wrong to allow sex with a minor ? you cant have it both ways.

personally i think thelaw was wrong on both counts ,but it is right in not allowing gay marriage.

now please in future do not try to twist my words.

[endure]

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.

No i was not born without a brain but it seems you were ,ipresume you had my answer deleted ,well here it is again

i did not and never have advocated "kiddie fiddling" what i said was that at in our not to distant past it was "legal" to have sex with a 12 year old girl but you could go to prison for one man having sex with another. Now it is the other way around ,but as usuall minorities twist the words that the majority speak

and by your logic if the law was wrong to allow two men to engagein sex ,were they also wrong to allow sex with a minor ? you cant have it both ways.

personally i think thelaw was wrong on both counts ,but it is right in not allowing gay marriage.

now please in future do not try to twist my words.

Can you not see the difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult having sex with a child?

[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.

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.

No i was not born without a brain but it seems you were ,ipresume you had my answer deleted ,well here it is again

i did not and never have advocated "kiddie fiddling" what i said was that at in our not to distant past it was "legal" to have sex with a 12 year old girl but you could go to prison for one man having sex with another. Now it is the other way around ,but as usuall minorities twist the words that the majority speak

and by your logic if the law was wrong to allow two men to engagein sex ,were they also wrong to allow sex with a minor ? you cant have it both ways.

personally i think thelaw was wrong on both counts ,but it is right in not allowing gay marriage.

now please in future do not try to twist my words.

Can you not see the difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult having sex with a child?

dont any of you "read" what is written? if you cant be bothered i cant be bothered to answer any more

[BigJohnnyBKK]

relevant links

Argentina

[Jingthing]

relevant links

Argentina

Great for them but that's more about gender identity than same sex marriage. (Legal in Argie-Bargie-landia, bless their plastic surgically modified hearts! ) Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[nocturn]

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.

No i was not born without a brain but it seems you were ,ipresume you had my answer deleted ,well here it is again

i did not and never have advocated "kiddie fiddling" what i said was that at in our not to distant past it was "legal" to have sex with a 12 year old girl but you could go to prison for one man having sex with another. Now it is the other way around ,but as usuall minorities twist the words that the majority speak

and by your logic if the law was wrong to allow two men to engagein sex ,were they also wrong to allow sex with a minor ? you cant have it both ways.

personally i think thelaw was wrong on both counts ,but it is right in not allowing gay marriage.

now please in future do not try to twist my words.

Can you not see the difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult having sex with a child?

he is not talking about right or wrong, he is talking about "the law", and his observations are correct. he indicated in no way that either was correct, in fact, he stated explicitly that both were wrong.

that said, i can not fathom why any intelligent individual would oppose gay marriage other than on the grounds of a misplaced sense of morality based on either religion or bigotry or other such intolerance, ignorance and misunderstanding.

drugs and homosexuality seem to be polarising topics on TV and the loudest are those with no experience of either.

strangely, debate has been much more even-handed over the course of the day.

lets see what the night brings out.

[sirineou]

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.

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.

What is the difference between civil unions and Marriage?

The differences are out lined in the document below.

http://www.glad.org/...vs-marriage.pdf

if any one would take the time to read it, you will see that there are equal under US federal law protection concerns,such as the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, Social Security survivor

benefits

and social dignity concerns.

The legal concerns can easily be addressed via legislation in any country. If all the Gay community wanted was equal protection under the law, then , IMHO , I would advise them to take the civil Union Option, and address it's inequalities trough the federal and state legislative and Judiciary system.Instead of forcing the issue with loaded terms such as marriage, and painting politicians that might be sympathetic to their plight, in to a corner.

The social acceptance aspect will come with a little time as people see that with Gay Unions , the sky did not fall, as the voting in this forum indicates.

Edited May 13, 2012 by sirineou

[mca]

I think the one pertinent question that everyone has avoided if gay marriage were legalized.

Who's going to do the interior decorating?

"Oh my God darling. That's soooo tacky!"

Edited May 13, 2012 by mca

[Ulysses G.]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

At the moment, no to gay marriage are the majority.

[Jingthing]

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.

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.

What is the difference between civil unions and Marriage?

The differences are out lined in the document below.

http://www.glad.org/...vs-marriage.pdf

if any one would take the time to read it, you will see that there are equal under US federal law protection concerns,such as the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, Social Security survivor

benefits

and social dignity concerns.

The legal concerns can easily be addressed via legislation in any country. If all the Gay community wanted was equal protection under the law, then , IMHO , I would advise them to take the civil Union Option, and address it's inequalities trough the federal and state legislative and Judiciary system.Instead of forcing the issue with loaded terms such as marriage, and painting politicians that might be sympathetic to their plight, in to a corner.

The social acceptance aspect will come with a little time as people see that with Gay Unions , the sky did not fall, as the voting in this forum indicates.

You got this 100 percent wrong in the context of the specific country the document was written about, the USA! I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a DELIBERATE distortion.

Yes, DO ... take the time to READ it.

For example:

"Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and

responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a

family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor

benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring

none of these critical legal protections."

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

At the moment, no to gay marriage are the majority.

Not really the case because we do NOT know what the results would be with a simpler question, legal gay marriage, yes or no?

[Jingthing]

I think the one pertinent question that everyone has avoided if gay marriage were legalized.

Who's going to do the interior decorating?

"Oh my God darling. That's soooo tacky!"

Hmmm. OK. Blast from the past in the humor department. A joke from an another era, or perhaps ... the Twilight Zone.

[bendix]

dont any of you "read" what is written? if you cant be bothered i cant be bothered to answer any more

Probably just as well, because your arguments are getting weaker and weaker with each new attempt.

[bonobo]

Sorry Samran, But that is exactly the point.

I have great respect for my gay friends, but in this issue, they are dead wrong.

They are trying to get the government to make a decision that re-classifies the human condition,

The human condition is defined by nature, and not the government,

if they were alowed to do this in this instance from pressure from a political group, what is to stop them from entering in to social engineering every time a group with adequate political power comes along?

I may be reading you incorrectly, but it seems as if you are inferring that homosexuality is not part of "nature."

[Berkshire]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

At the moment, no to gay marriage are the majority.

Not sure if this is correct, UG. My understanding is that public opinion is evolving rapidly and that the majority (slim majority) now support marriage equality for gays (in the US). But there is a clear contrast between older and younger--older is against, younger is for.

Regardless, this question should not be put to referendum. If history is any indication, whenever the majority decides rights for the minority, the minority loses nearly every time. If I recall, something like 70% of Americans back in 1967 believed that interracial marriage was wrong and should be outlawed.

President Obama did a courageous thing. He will be on the right side of history.

[Ulysses G.]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

At the moment, no to gay marriage are the majority.

Not really the case because we do NOT know what the results would be with a simpler question, legal gay marriage, yes or no?

The last time I counted, there were more votes on this poll against gay marriage than for it. That means that "no to gay marriage are the majority". I don't see what difference the question "legal gay marriage, yes or no?" would make.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[isanbirder]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

At the moment, no to gay marriage are the majority.

Not really the case because we do NOT know what the results would be with a simpler question, legal gay marriage, yes or no?

The last time I counted, there were more votes on this poll against gay marriage than for it. That means that "no to gay marriage are the majority". I don't see what difference the question "legal gay marriage, yes or no?" would make.

UG, you're yet another American confused by the US take on the subject. Civil partnership with equal rights is the same thing in law as marriage with equal rights. I'm afraid JT and I are at daggers drawn over this; I don't care what you call it; he does. To me, so long as it gives equal rights as those enjoyed by hetero couples, you can call it sharing the dog kennel if you want. The equal rights are what matters.

[Jingthing]

The yes votes are so far a majority. Go for it JT.

At the moment, no to gay marriage are the majority.

Not really the case because we do NOT know what the results would be with a simpler question, legal gay marriage, yes or no?

The last time I counted, there were more votes on this poll against gay marriage than for it. That means that "no to gay marriage are the majority". I don't see what difference the question "legal gay marriage, yes or no?" would make.

Oh please stop being so disingenuous. You know perfectly well how a poll is structured impacts the results. The point OBVIOUSLY that I made (did you really not get it?) is that some (I guess a lot) of the people who voted

No, but legal civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage should be legal in Thailand

would vote YES if asked a more simple question, legal same sex marriage, yes or no?

[Jingthing]

UG, you're yet another American confused by the US take on the subject. Civil partnership with equal rights is the same thing in law as marriage with equal rights. I'm afraid JT and I are at daggers drawn over this; I don't care what you call it; he does. To me, so long as it gives equal rights as those enjoyed by hetero couples, you can call it sharing the dog kennel if you want. The equal rights are what matters.

No, this is totally wrong. This has come up in MANY countries! Not only the US. Of course legal same sex marriage is not the same thing as legal same sex civil unions with the same rights of marriage (in countries where that is possible). Separate but equal cannot be the same thing exactly. Again, this is not only an issue in the US. It may indeed come up in Thailand as an issue as it has in other countries dealing with the same sex issued. You can be at daggers all you like, but it doesn't change basic truths. Anyone who asserts that legal same sex marriage and legal same sex civil unions with the same rights as marriage (again if that is even possible in a particular country) for a defined "OTHER" class of persons are the people who are so called confused. You can't wish away reality. Separate but equal can never be equal. Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[lazyj]

UG, you're yet another American confused by the US take on the subject. Civil partnership with equal rights is the same thing in law as marriage with equal rights. I'm afraid JT and I are at daggers drawn over this; I don't care what you call it; he does. To me, so long as it gives equal rights as those enjoyed by hetero couples, you can call it sharing the dog kennel if you want. The equal rights are what matters.

No, this is totally wrong. This has come up in MANY countries! Not only the US. Of course legal same sex marriage is not the same thing as legal same sex civil unions with the same rights of marriage (in countries where that is possible). Separate but equal cannot be the same thing exactly. Again, this is not only an issue in the US. It may indeed come up in Thailand as an issue as it has in other countries dealing with the same sex issued. You can be at daggers all you like, but it doesn't change basic truths. Anyone who asserts that legal same sex marriage and legal same sex civil unions with the same rights as marriage (again if that is even possible in a particular country) for a defined "OTHER" class of persons are the people who are so called confused. You can't wish away reality. Separate but equal can never be equal.

personally, my opinion is that gay couples should be afforded the same rights and priveleges as a hetero couple when they make the decision to commit to each other. whether you call it a marriage or a civil union means little to me, as long as the rights conferred by each are identical. could you please explain, in your view, what the difference between a marriage and civil union is?

[Jingthing]

UG, you're yet another American confused by the US take on the subject. Civil partnership with equal rights is the same thing in law as marriage with equal rights. I'm afraid JT and I are at daggers drawn over this; I don't care what you call it; he does. To me, so long as it gives equal rights as those enjoyed by hetero couples, you can call it sharing the dog kennel if you want. The equal rights are what matters.

No, this is totally wrong. This has come up in MANY countries! Not only the US. Of course legal same sex marriage is not the same thing as legal same sex civil unions with the same rights of marriage (in countries where that is possible). Separate but equal cannot be the same thing exactly. Again, this is not only an issue in the US. It may indeed come up in Thailand as an issue as it has in other countries dealing with the same sex issued. You can be at daggers all you like, but it doesn't change basic truths. Anyone who asserts that legal same sex marriage and legal same sex civil unions with the same rights as marriage (again if that is even possible in a particular country) for a defined "OTHER" class of persons are the people who are so called confused. You can't wish away reality. Separate but equal can never be equal.

personally, my opinion is that gay couples should be afforded the same rights and priveleges as a hetero couple when they make the decision to commit to each other. whether you call it a marriage or a civil union means little to me, as long as the rights conferred by each are identical. could you please explain, in your view, what the difference between a marriage and civil union is?

There is no simple answer to your question as it varies so much between countries.

Ideally for those favoring equality, legal same sex unions would have ALL of the same rights as legal marriage under CIVIL LAW (leaving out religious bodies).

UK people here are saying that is what happened in the UK.

That is very good and certainly good enough for a lot of people.

The difference in that case is the state mandated a different institution with a different word for a separate "OTHER" class of people, in this case same sex couples.

In other countries, civil unions have very few of the same rights as same sex marriage.

(Things like adoption, immigration, taxation, survivor benefits, etc. varying by country.)

So you can't say there is one set definition of civil unions

So in summation, every country has a set definition for marriage in their country.

But there is no such thing as a universal definition for civil unions as what they actually are is so variable.

In my view, universally, this isn't brain surgery for those favoring equality and fairness:

1. Best: legal same sex marriage

2. Good: legal same civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage

3. Better than nothing: legal same sex civil unions with lesser rights

etc. ...

Here is some good background on this:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Civil_union

Another point I'd like to make is that it is so easy to naively talk about civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage, but in REALITY that is an ideal rather than a reality. In reality creating the different "OTHER" institution is often used to offer LESSER rights than legal marriage.

For example in Ecuador:

Ecuador

Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador

The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador enacted civil unions between two people without regard to gender, giving same-sex couples the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples except for the right to adopt.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[RabC]

What about those Gays who do not wish to use the word Marriage because of all it's associated religious connections ?

Under UK law two men can receive exactly the same rights as a married couple without the stigma of the religious ""marriage" word.

[Jingthing]

What about those Gays who do not wish to use the word Marriage because of all it's associated religious connections ?

Under UK law two men can receive exactly the same rights as a married couple without the stigma of the religious ""marriage" word.

I suppose it would please them. I think it would also be full equality to have two things, marriage and civil unions, BOTH open to same sex AND opposite sex. Then there is something in place to please EVERYONE. I think its a very TRIVIAL issue you bring up because religious bodies don't OWN marriage at least in most countries. You can get married without dealing with any religious body as civil legal matter. Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The NEXT time in future I do a poll about gay marriage in Thailand, I hope I remember to structure the question a different, simpler way.

Legalize same sex marriage in Thailand?

YES

NO

NULL VOTE

I would do it now but I reckon the mod team would not appreciate two polls with such similar content at the same time.