Valentine's Day Disappointment: Lesbian Couple Vows To Lobby Yingluck After Failing To Get Married

[OzMick]

Having been married twice, I can confirm that a second marriage is the ultimate triumph of wishful thinking over past experience.

To anybody contemplating marriage to a Thai national, I can only wave my arms and say "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER".

BTW After ~7 years (who remembers dates?) of living in a very happy de facto relationship with a lady who knows I have few assets, without having to shell out for wedding costs and without giving her a licence to steal everything not bolted down (and a few things that were), I can heartily recommend it. Quit while you are in front.

So are you now married to a Thai and if so don't you want to change the danger danger to happy happy?

Do you have comprehension difficulties? I WAS married to a Thai, NOW I am in a de facto relationship with another. While that relationship may give her some rights, it certainly does not make us the same legal entity, which a marriage does.

If you don't understand how vulnerable that makes your assets, I suggest you consult a good lawyer (Rare species.)

[cup-O-coffee]

You might have said Rosa Parks could have reached her destination anyway being forced to always sit in the BACK of the bus ...

You are correct, but so am I. Life isn't what it should be, but you have to make the best out of it if you don't have the option of changing the status quo. There's no sense in letting a stress-related symptom send you to an early grave. There are a lot of things I can't have and I don't make an issue out of it. Getting the government to acknowledge a personal decision is a lot different from being treated lousy for wanting to sit anywhere in a bus. These two girls get to live their life the way they wish, with or without getting the government to say "Isn't that special!". Rosa Parks was a decent lady who was physically and emotionally abused for wanting to and attempting to be able to enjoy things that these two ladies do get to enjoy. Big difference, Jingthing.

[Jingthing]

No, they are exactly the same thing. People fighting for equal civil rights under the laws of their countries.

Lots of people said Rosa Parks was too UPPITY in her day. Same dealio with these brave Thai lesbians.

Rosa Parks was correct. Her critics back then were not correct. History will show the same conclusion about the international struggle for gay civil rights.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[chiangmaikelly]

Having been married twice, I can confirm that a second marriage is the ultimate triumph of wishful thinking over past experience.

To anybody contemplating marriage to a Thai national, I can only wave my arms and say "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER".

BTW After ~7 years (who remembers dates?) of living in a very happy de facto relationship with a lady who knows I have few assets, without having to shell out for wedding costs and without giving her a licence to steal everything not bolted down (and a few things that were), I can heartily recommend it. Quit while you are in front.

So are you now married to a Thai and if so don't you want to change the danger danger to happy happy?

Do you have comprehension difficulties? I WAS married to a Thai, NOW I am in a de facto relationship with another. While that relationship may give her some rights, it certainly does not make us the same legal entity, which a marriage does.

If you don't understand how vulnerable that makes your assets, I suggest you consult a good lawyer (Rare species.)

Don't they teach manners where you are from? Why the aggression? You didn't have to insult me by your comment, " Do you have comprehension difficulties." My assets are not at risk at all. I am apparently better educated at understanding Thailand and women in general than you. I have a house in Thailand and numerous other assets legally and only accessible by me. If you want to know how I could teach you but not for free. Have a good day and in the future don't assume everyone is inept as yourself.

[cup-O-coffee]

No, they are exactly the same thing. People fighting for equal civil rights under the laws of their countries.

Lots of people said Rosa Parks was too UPPITY in her day. Same dealio with these brave Thai lesbians.

Rosa Parks was correct. Her critics back then were not correct. History will show the same conclusion about the international struggle for gay civil rights.

No, they are not exactly the same thing. There is nothing religious about sitting anywhere on a bus. You can't find a scripture to cover my argument that Rosa could not sit anywhere on a bus because she was a heathen, or what have you. However, I know and you know that almost every holy book has scriptures about what these two girls are asking. There is nothing but pure religious lunacy about two people of the same gender going behind closed doors and doing whatever it is that they do, and I could care less as long as they don't hurt or kill each other.

Jingthing, you'll have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that religion has absolutely no influence over the personal decisions of government officials (aside from all their other mind altering vices). There was nothing religious about Ms. Parks sitting anywhere on a bus, or using a ladies toilet, or being able to use a public drinking fountain. The issues which the homosexual, transgender and lesbian community want to bring to the table and have concessions made for are being obstructed by nothing more than pure religious indoctrination and bias. Am I wrong? Prove it. Show me a politician that is against the issues of these three demographics and I'll be able to dig out a Bible, or a Koran or some religious book of teaching that they base their moral and ethical decisions on.

I agree with the ambiguous statement that :history will show, etc."; but as to what it shows is entirely based upon the balance of religion being outweighed by a majority in government who do not embrace those teachings. To be truthful with you, I do not see it happening in my lifetime. In the mean time, these three demographics should be thankful that there are countries in this world who allow these behaviors and choices to exist with an amount of acceptance that is (in my opinion) at a tolerable yet perceptible breaking point. Moreover, should these issues be pushed too much and too fast on an accepting society who are being subjected to (and you've got to admit) behavior which violates THEIR family values (GOT RESPECT?), then it is not illegitimate to say that the balance could be easily tipped back against what has heretofore been hard fought and won by the gay and transgender community.

So, what I am saying is, Rosa Parks was behind the starting line when the gun went off. These two lesbian girls are at the starting line and their issue is one of semantics. They are allowed to behave any way they wish. No one is telling them they can't be together, but they are arguing that they want people to acknowledge publicly and on paper that they have made a decision. How stupid is that? What is wrong with them going ahead and having their own wedding and honeymoon and having a gay priest marry them and then get on with life? They get to sit anywhere on the bus and hold hands and kiss, and no one is going to ask them to get off the bus.

It is a big difference, mate, but I am with you on the bullshit, uphill battle that gay people have to fight.

Get rid of religion and get people to show as much respect to each other as they show to invisible friends, and I think things will be much better. Until then, don't push what is given begrudgingly, and let those grudges have time to simmer and boil out the poison.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[cup-O-coffee]

Having been married twice, I can confirm that a second marriage is the ultimate triumph of wishful thinking over past experience.

To anybody contemplating marriage to a Thai national, I can only wave my arms and say "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER".

BTW After ~7 years (who remembers dates?) of living in a very happy de facto relationship with a lady who knows I have few assets, without having to shell out for wedding costs and without giving her a licence to steal everything not bolted down (and a few things that were), I can heartily recommend it. Quit while you are in front.

So are you now married to a Thai and if so don't you want to change the danger danger to happy happy?

Do you have comprehension difficulties? I WAS married to a Thai, NOW I am in a de facto relationship with another. While that relationship may give her some rights, it certainly does not make us the same legal entity, which a marriage does.

If you don't understand how vulnerable that makes your assets, I suggest you consult a good lawyer (Rare species.)

Don't they teach manners where you are from? Why the aggression? You didn't have to insult me by your comment, " Do you have comprehension difficulties." My assets are not at risk at all. I am apparently better educated at understanding Thailand and women in general than you. I have a house in Thailand and numerous other assets legally and only accessible by me. If you want to know how I could teach you but not for free. Have a good day and in the future don't assume everyone is inept as yourself.

This is another point that Jingthing and I did not get into; namely marriage recognized by a religion and / or by the State. The benefits of being recognized by religion are for peace of mind and a general acceptance by a group of peers. The advantages are eternal acceptance. If recognized by the State then we now get into the only thing that makes a State able to run; money.

I see both points of you two, but in hindsight, isn't marriage supposed to be unconditional? These days, marriage recognized by the State has become a mockery of justice, because the State has taken the pendulum to the far side and given all the rights to one spouse or the other, depending on which country we are in. What I mean is, when the two spouses turn ugly towards each other, who do they call; or who comes running to their aid to screw the other one out of it all?

Hence, when I hear about a person bragging that they are married by the State, yet have prenuptial agreements signed beforehand, I laugh my eyes out. All they are doing is reversing what marriage is and simply living together under the same roof as two separate individuals, but masking it with the term "married by the State"! It's kind of a perversion of vanilla ice cream; mixing White No.1 and vanilla flavoring until the chocolate coloring becomes creamy pale, and the cocoa tastes like vanilla, yet still stubbornly calling it chocolate ice cream.

I was raised in an era where marriage is total and complete; in love, on the books, financially, etc etc. but back then people did it because they had the backing of the government, their friends and their church. Divorce was not an option, and you worked out your problems no matter what.

In summary, if it is about money, then please don't call it marriage. Call it what it is; two people who have been burned too many times and have taken an ancient institution and twisted it around so lack of trust and faith and a lot of selfish fear can be satiated.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[Jingthing]

It is what it is. Whatever it is, it should be open to all citizens, of all races, of all sexual orientations. Period. End of story. Talking of course about civil marriage under the law. Doesn't need to have anything to do with religion. That is optional and a separate issue for religions.

There are some positive signs that Thailand might be headed soon towards legalization of same sex civil unions. That would be a first step.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[cup-O-coffee]

It is what it is. Whatever it is, it should be open to all citizens, of all races, of all sexual orientations. Period. End of story. Talking of course about civil marriage under the law. Doesn't need to have anything to do with religion. That is optional and a separate issue for religions.

There are some positive signs that Thailand might be headed soon towards legalization of same sex civil unions. That would be a first step.

I've got to go soon, so I'll check back tomorrow.

I see you are softening up and being more realistic towards what I've said. I agree with you Jingthing, but the damnable thing is there aren't enough countries in the world that think like this and allow the freedoms that these two girls DO have available to them, albeit under certain conditions of not being recognized by those who deem it unrecognizable. Is it really that bad for them? Are they really so upset about it whilst they live their live to the fullest, yet knowing that certain PM's ignore them? Do they really have to threaten to sit with the PM and destroy any credibility for the other gay people who have more legitimate issues? Are they mavericks out to spoil it for everyone?

The thing is, these few countries that do allow and live and let live are suffering way too many silly demands by these minority communities, and it is adversely affecting the balance of rights that they have won. I am not talking about the rights on the law books, but rather the rights of people not singling them out in public and giving them stress. I, for one, shake my head every time I read about the stupid things that the gay communities do to damage the hard won credibility they have gained thus far in the minds of people who are not gay and yet still have a difficult time adjusting to your concepts of normal human behavior.

I think that the gay and lesbian and transgender movement are making too many problems for themselves by upsetting everyday people who do not make a problem for gays, lesbians and transgenders, yet the only exposure they get of these three demographics are usually obscene and pornographic, or it is an issue of such hair-splitting value and practicality that they seem to be whining over nothing.

Additionally, in this time and day of bad economies and families struggling to survive and get their kids a decent education, the gay agenda should not be pushing aside basic survival issues merely to focus attention on forcing people to accept another view that is anathema to societies indoctrination, regrettable or as frustrating as it may seem to you at this time.

Perhaps acceptance will come, but the gay and lesbian and transgender movement can't make a tree grow faster by pulling on the trunk and tearing out the roots. All I am saying is that these two girls are messing it up for the rest with this (in my opinion) demand which is rendered unreasonable due to the times we live in and moreso because it tramples more legitimate issues which are beneficial to all people. This only benefits their conscience, but it does not put food on the table or give jobs to the unemployed or free up traffic jams.

Respectfully.

Edit: Do you really want to win respect and get your issues on demand? Elect a gay politician who can provide jobs, balance the economy, build new roads and give a decent education to our children and keep their personal sexual behaviors out of the public eye, and I'll vote Rainbow all week.

Edit 2: Incidentally, if a government does not have its finger on the pulse of the people and it steamrolls laws that the majority does not embrace, you will only create more heartache. Win the hearts and minds of the people and you win the people. Making laws as you suggest ("might be headed soon towards legalization of same sex civil unions") is merely a law.

Look at how many laws Thailand currently have which are absolutely ignored. I disagree that a mere law is a step in any direction when the conception of that law is not in the hearts and minds of the people and simply cleverly written into being by a crafty lawmaker and which fools or tricks the people. Just make sure your law is a vote by the people and not by a handful of corrupt politicians who you love today because they give you a law and you hate tomorrow because they are corrupt. It makes you both out to be stupid and to appear as being against the people's wishes. Not good.

Edited February 25, 2013 by cup-O-coffee

[Jingthing]

You're complicating a very simple, basic justice/basic civil rights/basic social equality issue. It has NOTHING to do with jobs. If minority groups throughout history had to wait for economic utopia to fight against injustice, they never would have started. Societies are capable of working on multiple things at the same time. Maybe someone is interested in debating in the off topic black holes you propose, but it isn't me. Cheers.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

Rubbish. It was nothing but a publicity stunt. They knew exactly that nothing at all would come from it on the political front. Two silly, stupid, publicity seeking women is what they are.

You are not quite correct when you say nothing came out. what came out is a public discussion, this one here on ThaiVisa among expats just being the tip of the iceberg,

And that is good.

Yes, a publicity stunt is sometimes necessary to get publicity for a cause...

[onthemoon]

You might have said Rosa Parks could have reached her destination anyway being forced to always sit in the BACK of the bus ...

You are correct, but so am I. Life isn't what it should be, but you have to make the best out of it if you don't have the option of changing the status quo. There's no sense in letting a stress-related symptom send you to an early grave. There are a lot of things I can't have and I don't make an issue out of it. Getting the government to acknowledge a personal decision is a lot different from being treated lousy for wanting to sit anywhere in a bus. These two girls get to live their life the way they wish, with or without getting the government to say "Isn't that special!". Rosa Parks was a decent lady who was physically and emotionally abused for wanting to and attempting to be able to enjoy things that these two ladies do get to enjoy. Big difference, Jingthing.

Of course we have the option of changing the status quo. During my teen and twen years, we took to the streets, lobbied, and pulled publicity stunt. The effect was that homosexuality went from being a crime to being accepted by (most of) the public, and the changing of laws.

If life isn't what it should be, stand up for your rights, I'd say.

And, as was pointed out in another thread, being gay or lesbian is not a decision. It is a realisation at some point in life, for some earlier for others later. Nobody chooses to be gay - many gays and lesbians that I know would choose to be straight. Life is so much easier for straight people.

Point in case: Do you think people in Iran or Uganda really choose to be gay? That they made a decision?

[OzMick]

Having been married twice, I can confirm that a second marriage is the ultimate triumph of wishful thinking over past experience.

To anybody contemplating marriage to a Thai national, I can only wave my arms and say "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER".

BTW After ~7 years (who remembers dates?) of living in a very happy de facto relationship with a lady who knows I have few assets, without having to shell out for wedding costs and without giving her a licence to steal everything not bolted down (and a few things that were), I can heartily recommend it. Quit while you are in front.

So are you now married to a Thai and if so don't you want to change the danger danger to happy happy?

Do you have comprehension difficulties? I WAS married to a Thai, NOW I am in a de facto relationship with another. While that relationship may give her some rights, it certainly does not make us the same legal entity, which a marriage does.

If you don't understand how vulnerable that makes your assets, I suggest you consult a good lawyer (Rare species.)

Don't they teach manners where you are from? Why the aggression? You didn't have to insult me by your comment, " Do you have comprehension difficulties." My assets are not at risk at all. I am apparently better educated at understanding Thailand and women in general than you. I have a house in Thailand and numerous other assets legally and only accessible by me. If you want to know how I could teach you but not for free. Have a good day and in the future don't assume everyone is inept as yourself.

My apologies if I was abrupt, i just thought that if you can't read 2 simple sentences without getting the right result, you may have cognitive difficulties.

As for the security of your assets while you are married to a Thai, I again recommend a good lawyer. The best legal advice in regard to a Thai marriage, from a very highly qualified and regarded lawyer, was "Don't do it!" Unfortunately much too late.

[chiangmaikelly]

So are you now married to a Thai and if so don't you want to change the danger danger to happy happy?

Do you have comprehension difficulties? I WAS married to a Thai, NOW I am in a de facto relationship with another. While that relationship may give her some rights, it certainly does not make us the same legal entity, which a marriage does.

If you don't understand how vulnerable that makes your assets, I suggest you consult a good lawyer (Rare species.)

Don't they teach manners where you are from? Why the aggression? You didn't have to insult me by your comment, " Do you have comprehension difficulties." My assets are not at risk at all. I am apparently better educated at understanding Thailand and women in general than you. I have a house in Thailand and numerous other assets legally and only accessible by me. If you want to know how I could teach you but not for free. Have a good day and in the future don't assume everyone is inept as yourself.

My apologies if I was abrupt, i just thought that if you can't read 2 simple sentences without getting the right result, you may have cognitive difficulties.

As for the security of your assets while you are married to a Thai, I again recommend a good lawyer. The best legal advice in regard to a Thai marriage, from a very highly qualified and regarded lawyer, was "Don't do it!" Unfortunately much too late.

I said, but I'll say it again. My assets are not at risk and I am the only one who can touch them. I don't know how much clearer I can get. No one else can touch my assets if I am alive or dead. Why would I need a lawyer?

[tombkk]

May I kindly suggest we stop the personal bickering and get on-topic again, which is about a lesbian couple wanting to get married in Thailand. Thanks.

[Puccini]

Rubbish. It was nothing but a publicity stunt. They knew exactly that nothing at all would come from it on the political front. Two silly, stupid, publicity seeking women is what they are.

You might say the same thing about Rosa Parks.

Pardon my ignorance. Is Rosa Parks a lesbian I should know by name? Never heard of her, neither in Thailand nor in Italy.

[Jingthing]

...

Is Rosa Parks a lesbian I should know by name? Never heard of her, neither in Thailand nor in Italy.

1. Not a lesbian.

2. If you don't know, there is google.

I used an analogy.

[cup-O-coffee]

You're complicating a very simple, basic justice/basic civil rights/basic social equality issue. It has NOTHING to do with jobs. If minority groups throughout history had to wait for economic utopia to fight against injustice, they never would have started. Societies are capable of working on multiple things at the same time. Maybe someone is interested in debating in the off topic black holes you propose, but it isn't me. Cheers.

We still disagree, but Cheers anyway.

[Puccini]

...

Is Rosa Parks a lesbian I should know by name? Never heard of her, neither in Thailand nor in Italy.

1. Not a lesbian.

2. If you don't know, there is google.

I used an analogy.

screenhunter_110-dec-03-11-48.jpg

In other words, you went off topic. Is that it?

[Jingthing]

...

Is Rosa Parks a lesbian I should know by name? Never heard of her, neither in Thailand nor in Italy.

1. Not a lesbian.

2. If you don't know, there is google.

I used an analogy.

screenhunter_110-dec-03-11-48.jpg

In other words, you went off topic. Is that it?

Not in the slightest.

[David006]

I have nothing against same-sex marriages, but Thai law does. Seems a bit infintile that these women (knowing the law) even bothered to go to Bang Rak. Surely the could just skip that step (since it's futile) and directly petition the PM's office. Get a few signatures and what not.

These two publicity seekers waisted the public officials' time on their busiest day of the year.

It's called a political PROTEST. That was the best time to do it. Congrats to the awakening gay civil rights movement in Thailand.

Considering the amount of paperwork heterosexuals have to go through to register Thai/foriegner marriage ..think this is more of the "look at us" "out and gay" ....BS ...if they want get married legally ..lots of places in this world..just don't expect legal recognition in Thailand...awakening civil rights my arse movement...ooops!

[Jingthing]

I have nothing against same-sex marriages, but Thai law does. Seems a bit infintile that these women (knowing the law) even bothered to go to Bang Rak. Surely the could just skip that step (since it's futile) and directly petition the PM's office. Get a few signatures and what not.

These two publicity seekers waisted the public officials' time on their busiest day of the year.

It's called a political PROTEST. That was the best time to do it. Congrats to the awakening gay civil rights movement in Thailand.

Considering the amount of paperwork heterosexuals have to go through to register Thai/foriegner marriage ..think this is more of the "look at us" "out and gay" ....BS ...if they want get married legally ..lots of places in this world..just don't expect legal recognition in Thailand...awakening civil rights my arse movement...ooops!

It is expected here either soon or at worst within a decade or so. The government (ruling party) is actively discussing a bill about this RIGHT NOW. By "it" I mean legal same sex civil unions in Thailand, not legal same sex marriage.

[Pimay1]

Quotes got me.

It is expected here either soon or at worst within a decade or so. The government (ruling party) is actively discussing a bill about this RIGHT NOW. By "it" I mean legal same sex civil unions in Thailand, not legal same sex marriage.

Excuse my ignorance Jing but what is same sex civil union? Not trying to wind you up, I really don't know.

[Jingthing]

Quotes got me.

It is expected here either soon or at worst within a decade or so. The government (ruling party) is actively discussing a bill about this RIGHT NOW. By "it" I mean legal same sex civil unions in Thailand, not legal same sex marriage.

Excuse my ignorance Jing but what is same sex civil union? Not trying to wind you up, I really don't know.

Some countries (and U.S. states) etc. have created a new legal structure for couples to join legally that is not marriage. It is usually designed for same sex couples but sometimes is also open to heterosexual couples as an alternative to marriage (typically to deflect opponents of full equal civil MARRIAGE rights for gays). The specific features of such legal alternatives to marriages vary widely across countries. For example, UK same sex civil unions are almost identical to marriage except for the word, while U.S. state civil unions are very much less complete than marriage. The details of any Thai civil union law are still a work in progress. It may or may not happen soon but Thailand is moving in the right direction. The first version of the Thai law would allow Thais to enter into legal same sex civil unions with a foreigner. Some Thai gay activists would much rather see Thailand go directly to full MARRIAGE equal rights rather than civil unions which is seen by many as a LESS THAN. There are already nine or ten nations with complete marriage equality.

Any nation working on same sex civil unions legislation or same sex marriage legislation is no longer inventing the wheel. Some critics of same sex civil unions argue that is a first step towards same sex marriage and they have a point, for opponents of civil rights, that is.

In my opinion, this issue is bigger than Thailand and these kinds of protests and legislative efforts are part of a bigger international movement for gay equal civil rights. The world is connected now. When activists in Mexico worked to make gay marriage legal in Mexico it didn't happen in a vacuum. They know this had already happened in other countries including another macho culture Catholic Latin American country already. Thailand may possibly be the first Asean country to make a breakthrough on this issue.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[Pimay1]

Quotes got me.

It is expected here either soon or at worst within a decade or so. The government (ruling party) is actively discussing a bill about this RIGHT NOW. By "it" I mean legal same sex civil unions in Thailand, not legal same sex marriage.

Excuse my ignorance Jing but what is same sex civil union? Not trying to wind you up, I really don't know.

Some countries (and U.S. states) etc. have created a new legal structure for couples to join legally that is not marriage. It is usually designed for same sex couples but sometimes is also open to heterosexual couples as an alternative to marriage (typically to deflect opponents of full equal civil MARRIAGE rights for gays). The specific features of such legal alternatives to marriages vary widely across countries. For example, UK same sex civil unions are almost identical to marriage except for the word, while U.S. state civil unions are very much less complete than marriage. The details of any Thai civil union law are still a work in progress. It may or may not happen soon but Thailand is moving in the right direction. The first version of the Thai law would allow Thais to enter into legal same sex civil unions with a foreigner. Some Thai gay activists would much rather see Thailand go directly to full MARRIAGE equal rights rather than civil unions which is seen by many as a LESS THAN. There are already nine or ten nations with complete marriage equality.

Any nation working on same sex civil unions legislation or same sex marriage legislation is no longer inventing the wheel. Some critics of same sex civil unions argue that is a first step towards same sex marriage and they have a point, for opponents of civil rights, that is.

In my opinion, this issue is bigger than Thailand and these kinds of protests and legislative efforts are part of a bigger international movement for gay equal civil rights. The world is connected now. When activists in Mexico worked to make gay marriage legal in Mexico it didn't happen in a vacuum. They know this had already happened in other countries including another macho culture Catholic Latin American country already. Thailand may possibly be the first Asean country to make a breakthrough on this issue.

Thanks for the explaination Jing. Never too old to learn.