Same-Sex Union Bill No Cause For Celebration

[notmyself]

yep, if it turns your stomach, then it's not for you. just like the smell of nam pla for me, it literally makes me retch. so i don't eat it.

But would you not allow other people to eat it?

[aguy30]

Actually I'm sure gay & lesbian couples would probably settle for equal rights of inheritance, adoption, tax benefits, etc enjoyed by married couples - without the 'married' tag. It's an OK first step and better than nothing. Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Why should they?

Why shouldn't gays have those rights? Your comment is totally ignorant and stupid. Do those rights take something away from you?

This is a classic case of inverted fascism. This is the kind of person who actually believes it's wrong to express views other than his own.

What he fails to realise is that there are some people who find the idea of same sex marriage something that turns their stomachs, and adopting children even more so. It's not being bigoted, it's just a natural reaction that is surpressed by the PC media and Western thought police.

It's good to see the Thai government actually making sense for a change.

Personally I think sausage and mash is a rather disgusting meal and should not be allowed to be sold in any restaurant. It should only be eaten in the privacy of one's home and behind shuttered windows. All governments should ban it immediately from any public place. But on to the real point.

Sorry but your comment is absolutely bigotry. It isn't any different from the earlier times in America when people referred to blacks with "N" word and didn't allow them to have rights. Gays are the last people that can legally be discriminated against and everyone should accept your point of view as being better because bigotry and discrimination are good as long as it is what you think it should be. If it smells like bigotry it probably is bigotry.

Edited April 28, 2013 by aguy30

[princessa]

The te to a marriage is generally consent. A dog cannot consent to marriage.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage. In some, ten year old girls are said to be consenting. In many cultures, representing at least a billion people, no one really cares if the woman consents or not, and yet they marry, have children, grow old and die.

So I'm afraid consent is neither a prerequisite nor a test of marriage.

Once again, what is your problem with same sex marriages exactly, other than that accepting them is complicated for you by some reasons.

[Jingthing]

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

[wilcopops]

The te to a marriage is generally consent. A dog cannot consent to marriage.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage. In some, ten year old girls are said to be consenting. In many cultures, representing at least a billion people, no one really cares if the woman consents or not, and yet they marry, have children, grow old and die.

So I'm afraid consent is neither a prerequisite nor a test of marriage.

Once again, what is your problem with same sex marriages exactly, other than that accepting them is complicated for you by some reasons.

" In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage." - like in US and UK? however their are possibly real science-based problems here, that certainly don't apply to gey marriage. I'd say your comparing apples and lemons.

Edited April 28, 2013 by wilcopops

[sustento]

If same sex people wish to party or spend a life time together - so be it. Who really cares?

no one, "legalise same-sex relationships" is therefor nonsense. It wasn't illegal like in Saudi Arabia.

But the point is, if it is good if two gays can adopt young boys. Which might be complete OK in 99 %, but what is with the 1 % where real bad things happen??

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion no-one should be allowed to adopt children at all. After all 1% of straight men might sexually assault their adopted daughters and 1% of straight women might sexually assault their adopted sons.

[sustento]

Bearing in mind that the main aim of any species is further the existence of that species surely the legalising of any same sex union, which is unable to procreate, is actually a retrograde step and indeed a move toward extinction.

Will the fact that gays are allowed to get married stop procreation? Will it stop straight couples having the children that they have now?

[wilcopops]

The te to a marriage is generally consent. A dog cannot consent to marriage.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage. In some, ten year old girls are said to be consenting. In many cultures, representing at least a billion people, no one really cares if the woman consents or not, and yet they marry, have children, grow old and die.

So I'm afraid consent is neither a prerequisite nor a test of marriage.

Once again, what is your problem with same sex marriages exactly, other than that accepting them is complicated for you by some reasons.

"I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage. In some, ten year old girls are said to be consenting. In many cultures, representing at least a billion people, no one really cares if the woman consents or not, and yet they marry, have children, grow old and die.

So I'm afraid consent is neither a prerequisite nor a test of marriage." - what a facile argument. You seem to be suggesting (quite inaccurately) that if consent is not given in some societies then this is justification for prohibiting a consensual marriage in another culture?

[aguy30]

If same sex people wish to party or spend a life time together - so be it. Who really cares?

no one, "legalise same-sex relationships" is therefor nonsense. It wasn't illegal like in Saudi Arabia.

But the point is, if it is good if two gays can adopt young boys. Which might be complete OK in 99 %, but what is with the 1 % where real bad things happen??

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion no-one should be allowed to adopt children at all. After all 1% of straight men might sexually assault their adopted daughters and 1% of straight women might sexually assault their adopted sons.

My thought is that young boys have more to worry about from a priest than a gay couple that wants to adopt and care for them. If you give it some thought, you would realize the gay couple looking to adopt is probably in the 30 to 60 age group and are attracted to like ages, not young boys. That's why they are a couple. I doubt that many gays are actually attracted to children and youngsters. (unless you accept the stereotype profiling of haters). I believe that statistics show it is more likely that a child will be molested by a heterosexual than a gay.

All priests should be banned from being around boys because they pose a threat. Does that sound like a good idea?

Edited April 28, 2013 by aguy30

[sustento]

Here's a very open question I just have to ask - if gay and lesbian communities around the world succeed in their demands to be given equality would they consider stopping all the parades to celebrate being different ?

why? do you feel left out?

:-)

tp

[wilcopops]

Spalpeen what do you care who or what people wan t to marry as long as you can do the same?

I think this is one of the first steps towards total equality and i t may be a long way but even a country like France is beginning to see the light.

Being infected with the homophobia virus seems to be really affecting the mental health of some people.

Yep, mental health. How about that; 'phobia' describes something people are afraid of. Arachnophobia, claustrophobia, and homophobia too when this word was invented. It doesn't have a discriminatory denotation. How comes the meaning of the term has been so perverted that it now describes an alledged negative attitude, discrimination, hate?

Let's get this clear - a Phobia is used to describe an IRRATIONAL fear of something.

Homophobia originally meant the fear of BECOMING gay, now it means a fear of gay people and gay-ness in general. As this fear is irrational how can one expect rational behaviour from someone with a phobia of the subject?

[notmyself]

If same sex people wish to party or spend a life time together - so be it. Who really cares?

no one, "legalise same-sex relationships" is therefor nonsense. It wasn't illegal like in Saudi Arabia.

But the point is, if it is good if two gays can adopt young boys. Which might be complete OK in 99 %, but what is with the 1 % where real bad things happen??

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion no-one should be allowed to adopt children at all. After all 1% of straight men might sexually assault their adopted daughters and 1% of straight women might sexually assault their adopted sons.

When people try to justify their opposition to same sex marrage you see that it is not that they have a poor argument, it is that they have no argument.

[wilcopops]

Here's a very open question I just have to ask - if gay and lesbian communities around the world succeed in their demands to be given equality would they consider stopping all the parades to celebrate being different ?

why? do you feel left out?

:-)

tp

...and maybe you'd consider stopping Christmas, Mardi Gras, etc etc??

[sustento]

Actually I'm sure gay & lesbian couples would probably settle for equal rights of inheritance, adoption, tax benefits, etc enjoyed by married couples - without the 'married' tag. It's an OK first step and better than nothing. Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Why should they?

Slowly slowly catchee monkee...

[sustento]

The test to a marriage is generally consent. A dog cannot consent to marriage.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage. In some, ten year old girls are said to be consenting. In many cultures, representing at least a billion people, no one really cares if the woman consents or not, and yet they marry, have children, grow old and die.

So I'm afraid consent is neither a prerequisite nor a test of marriage.

[notmyself]

Imagine this in Thai Parliament

[Potosi]

The test to a marriage is generally consent. A dog cannot consent to marriage.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. In some cultures first cousins can consent to marriage. In some, ten year old girls are said to be consenting. In many cultures, representing at least a billion people, no one really cares if the woman consents or not, and yet they marry, have children, grow old and die. So I'm afraid consent is neither a prerequisite nor a test of marriage.

Stupid cartoon. You could make the same case for the marriage of sibblings, bisexuals marrying a woman as well as a man, and polygamy. That's all consenting adults possibly in love.

[sustento]

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

[Nisa]

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

[Nisa]

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

Agree that is not what is being proposed but if the bisexuals, polygamists or siblings are consenting adults of sound mind then should they not be given the right to marry? I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults. Siblings can adopt children just like a gay couple. Nothing is a perfect example for why gay marriage should be allowed but there are good examples, such as this, that show many people do want to have a line of defining what marriages should be allowed among consenting adults. And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and it should be left up to individuals and/or the groups they choose to belong..

Edited April 28, 2013 by Nisa

[wilcopops]

Imagine this in Thai Parliament

this is a brilliant speech that has already gone down in history - it hjas gone viral on the et and for once it is not a viral about race hate or bigotry.

[Spalpeen]

Potosi makes an interesting point here. The next thing after gay 'marriage' will be bisexuals (The B in GLBTI) wanting to marry both a man and a woman because marrying only one person would deny them the right to fully express their sexuality. And if all three are consenting adults, who could possibly object to that?

[wilcopops]

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

I rhink you are overlooking one of the main points of "gay-marriage" - and that is if it is seen a equal under the law (i.e. Government involvement) then the partners will be subject to the same responsibilities and befit that marriage incurs...notably property rights ,tax, welfare, and inheritance.

[wilcopops]

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

Agree that is not what is being proposed but if the bisexuals, polygamists or siblings are consenting adults of sound mind then should they not be given the right to marry? I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults. Siblings can adopt children just like a gay couple. Nothing is a perfect example for why gay marriage should be allowed but there are good examples, such as this, that show many people do want to have a line of defining what marriages should be allowed among consenting adults. And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and it should be left up to individuals and/or the groups they choose to belong..

"I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults." so you could argue for the illegalisation of heterosexual marriage - they're "a group"?

[Nisa]

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

I rhink you are overlooking one of the main points of "gay-marriage" - and that is if it is seen a equal under the law (i.e. Government involvement) then the partners will be subject to the same responsibilities and befit that marriage incurs...notably property rights ,tax, welfare, and inheritance.

I think you didn't read my post.

[wilcopops]

Potosi makes an interesting point here. The next thing after gay 'marriage' will be bisexuals (The B in GLBTI) wanting to marry both a man and a woman because marrying only one person would deny them the right to fully express their sexuality. And if all three are consenting adults, who could possibly object to that?

It as if now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel looking desperately for some kind of argument....and they're getting more and more facile.

As the man says - Legalising gay marriage will not open any flood gates, it just gives the opportunity for some people to be able to live like the rest of us. there will be no threat to the fabric of society, in fact it might actually gicve the institution of marriage a much needed jolt in the arm......maybe gays can do for marriage what they did for musical theatre?

[wilcopops]

Fill in the blank. There is no RATIONAL argument against legal gay marriage.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

I rhink you are overlooking one of the main points of "gay-marriage" - and that is if it is seen a equal under the law (i.e. Government involvement) then the partners will be subject to the same responsibilities and befit that marriage incurs...notably property rights ,tax, welfare, and inheritance.

I think you didn't read my post.

" I am simply against the government being involved in marriage" - ??

[Nisa]

But siblings, bisexuals and polygamists aren't asking to be allowed to marry. Homosexuals (that is TWO unrelated people who love each other) are.

Agree that is not what is being proposed but if the bisexuals, polygamists or siblings are consenting adults of sound mind then should they not be given the right to marry? I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults. Siblings can adopt children just like a gay couple. Nothing is a perfect example for why gay marriage should be allowed but there are good examples, such as this, that show many people do want to have a line of defining what marriages should be allowed among consenting adults. And this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and it should be left up to individuals and/or the groups they choose to belong..

"I don't see how you can be for one group's rights and not the other when it comes to consenting adults." so you could argue for the illegalisation of heterosexual marriage - they're "a group"?

I am either not understanding your logic or question and therefore cannot answer. However, I am for all of the above being allowed to marry or any other consulting adults to marry and I believe the government should not be in the business of approving marriages and the government should stick to granting Civil Unions to any adults who wish to form a partnership for benefit reasons and the peoples sex lives in these unions should have nothing to do with it.

[Nisa]

I personally don' have any issue with gay people marrying and would vote to allow it but also understand and respect those against it wouldn't be so closed minded to call their beliefs, religions and traditions not rational. I don't believe much in organized religion either but believe people have a right to practice it even if it means their belief in protecting what their God defines as marriage as well as their belief to uphold moral standards in society and protect the definition of what they see as a holly union.

There are over the top people on both sides of the debate who help others to see a side in a negative and stereotypical view but the truth is the majority on each side are just regular people with different views. Once people realize this then the problem becomes much easier to address and those who shout hatred to intimidate on one side and those on the other who go out of their way to flaunt their sexuality knowing it makes other uncomfortable will not been seen as representative of either group but rather just people with issues that exists in all groups.

In reality I think the government should never have got into the business of marriage and they should use a different term such as Civil Union for ALL that want to set up a business agreement for joint benefits and there should be no requirement of the parties needing to be in love or have sex and only a requirement to remain in this arrangement for a minimum time or face penalties . Marriage on the other hand indicates something more personal and should be left up to the individuals and whatever belief system or group they subscribe. So probably more than being pro=gay marriage I am simply against the government being involved in marriage. If you want to change the definition of marriage that has been around so long and held such a scared and important meaning to so many people then it is illogical to believe this is not going to upset some people .... personally I have never held such strong beliefs so doesn't bother me but understand how and why it would bother many.

I rhink you are overlooking one of the main points of "gay-marriage" - and that is if it is seen a equal under the law (i.e. Government involvement) then the partners will be subject to the same responsibilities and befit that marriage incurs...notably property rights ,tax, welfare, and inheritance.

I think you didn't read my post.

" I am simply against the government being involved in marriage" - ??

Keep going now ... there is more than a partial sentence in the post.

[onthemoon]

Bearing in mind that the main aim of any species is further the existence of that species surely the legalising of any same sex union, which is unable to procreate, is actually a retrograde step and indeed a move toward extinction.

So you want infertile couples to be forcibly divorced? How about heterosexual couples who decide not to have children: Should they be punished with jail sentences?

Edited April 28, 2013 by onthemoon