Same-Sex Union Bill No Cause For Celebration

[onthemoon]

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??

Are you trying to be funny? Most of those 1% are heterosexuals uncles... Prove me wrong, I challenge you.

[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.

It is extremely rare that other (non-human) animal species are monogamous, so if you want to play that card you'd have to be against marriage for anyone ... gay or otherwise.

Swans, penguins, and another roughly 150 species are not only monogamous but also feature same-sex relationships. I wouldn't call that rare.

[onthemoon]

For all the straight people who are vehemently against gay marriage, what is your problem? It won't rob you of any of your privileges.

Watch this though:

Edited April 28, 2013 by onthemoon

[sbk]

Posts deleted. Let me remind you all of forum rules

I would recommend to members to follow them or further suspensions will be handed out.

[Ticketmaster]

This is stupid, homosexuals should hav the sames right as heterosexuals do, they should be able to get married, adopt etc the same that hetero.

You know that, we know that, but Thailand doesn't yet have the balls to do it, so again they take their PC attitude to avoid confruntation.

I certainly don't know it. LGBTI's should be treated absolutely the same as heteros -- to the extent that there are no discernible differences in opportunities or rights -- EXCEPT adopting children. There are two ways of looking at it. You can look at it from the point of view of "what's best for the adult LGBTI" or you can look at it from the point of view of "what's best for the child." The PC crowd, of course, takes the former point of view, and there is really nothing to discuss.

As to the latter, what's best for the child? Nobody can question the fact that by nature a child is produced by a man and a woman (or their seed in some form of manipulation). Nobody has ever been able to produce a child with a purely homosexual act. So, looking at it from the point of view of nature, kids belong with hetero parents. But what do the kids think? Can a kid grow up loving LGBTI parents? Of course! But at what cost is all this to the developing child?

Can any of you remember growing up with all the teasing that goes on in school? It runs from mild teasing to outright bullying. The fat kid always caught hell (I guess all the kids are fat now), I was the red headed kid ("I'd rather be dead than red on the head"). I was both a victim and a perpetrator. Teasing in school, like it or not, has gone on as long as there has been school and it will continue despite all the futile efforts of adult intervention. Do you really think all the kids today are so PC that a kid having gay parents is not going to catch hell? How is this kid going to grow up happy and well adjusted without having to be pretty tough, too? Is this fair to the kid -- just one more burden on top of being fat, red headed, short, etc. Why unnecessarily put any kid through this when their are alternatives? Just to satisfy the selfish desires of adult LGBTI's who are putting their interests ahead of the child's? Is this really right?

As to an LGBTI having a biological child (artificial insemination, surrogate, hetero crossover, etc.), nothing to be done about that. If it's biological, they have parental rights. But adoptions are creatures of the law, and traditionally, it has been the "best interests of the child" that were considered for any potential adoption, and gay parents simply don't seem to be in the best interests of the child when there are hetero options. We're talking "best." Is it "best for the child" (developmentally, psychologically etc.) to have a mom and a dad adopting or an LGBTI couple? They two options are certainly NOT the same thing. Consider the goal of adoption agencies: The provide the child with a setting that will make the child feel a part of a "real family." Any kid adopted out to an LGBTI couple will always know somewhere in his or her psyche that something is a little off.

Thailand's solution is right on the mark; I applaud it. It gives LGBTI's everything but kids. Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%. LGBTI's are normal and natural. I fully believe it is not a choice, but rather mandated by genetics. But LGBTI's having children is neither natural not normal. It will never be natural and I hope it will never be normal.

[notmyself]

Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%.

It is half a leaf and it's called equality for all.

[Ticketmaster]

Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%.

It is half a leaf and it's called equality for all.

Except the children. What about the children? Do they have a right to be adopted into a "natural" family? If you are straight, what do you think it would have been like to grow up with gay parents?

[sustento]

Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%.

It is half a leaf and it's called equality for all.

Except the children. What about the children? Do they have a right to be adopted into a "natural" family? If you are straight, what do you think it would have been like to grow up with gay parents?

Much better than it would have been to grow up where your parents were disinterested agents of the state.

[notmyself]

Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%.

It is half a leaf and it's called equality for all.

Except the children. What about the children? Do they have a right to be adopted into a "natural" family? If you are straight, what do you think it would have been like to grow up with gay parents?

To be raised in a loving family is all the matters.

[notmyself]

If the child is all the matters then what about a gay or lesbian child being raised by a homophobic family in a largely homophobic world. Imagine the pain the the suffering.

[Nisa]

Yes, the LGBTI response is greedy. It's never enough, is it? It's not a question of taking half a loaf. It's 95%.

It is half a leaf and it's called equality for all.

Except the children. What about the children? Do they have a right to be adopted into a "natural" family? If you are straight, what do you think it would have been like to grow up with gay parents?

To be raised in a loving family is all the matters.

What if the home is loving but believes in racial segregation and believes homosexuals will burn in hell? Point is beliefs and life sty;es do matter.

As long as there is qualified hetro couples out there willing to adopt then I say they should be considered first and then less optimal situations such as single parents and homosexuals. And I would be more inclined to have a child go to a single women than a man or men be they hetro or homo.

Here is a link to recent scientific study that is not pro or con gay tha looked at adult kids from homosexual couples (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610) and here are some findings that supposedly come from this research ....

Are much more likely to have received welfare

Have lower educational attainment

Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin

Are more likely to suffer from depression

Have been arrested more often

Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance

Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed

Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

Nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others

Use marijuana more frequently

Smoke more frequently

Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

Much of this will probably change if homosexual lifestyles become more acceptable but given the small percentage of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals and the even smaller number of homosexuals who will marry and have kids it may always be tougher just as it is for kids in single households, which has become fairly common, but that doesn't mean a single parent or gay parents can't raise perfectly adjusted kids.

In years to come if it can be shown there is little difference then fine but this is something earned and not just given because somebody says they are equal. This is about the welfare of kids.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nisa

[jackw]

The purpose of Thai "legislation" that apes Western legislation is not now, never was, and never will be about reforming Thai society. It's about Thais posturing to show themselves and their country to be "modern", "enlightened", and "up to date." It's not like they'd ever actually allow any meaningful or effective implementing regulation to be adopted let alone enforced.

[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 getting the question or how you arrived at this logic. Why would I want to argue to make it illegal for one group (Hetros) to get married when I am advocating that all consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

[Nisa]

The purpose of Thai "legislation" that apes Western legislation is not now, never was, and never will be about reforming Thai society. It's about Thais posturing to show themselves and their country to be "modern", "enlightened", and "up to date." It's not like they'd ever actually allow any meaningful or effective implementing regulation to be adopted let alone enforced.

Well then they are doing what it takes by talking about it and not actually acting because as far as I can tell same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in only Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nisa

[ignis]

Well the marriage 'imstitution' is already pretty messed up with divorce rates so high. Introducing off topic items doesn't help either. 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.

What rights do gay & lesbian couples have ? I know couples that have been together for years, both men and women Gay couples one couple that have been together over 40 years, one had an accident, the other could not even see him in Hospital, as not a wife or family member.. if one partner dies, the remaining partner has no rights or say in anything they have or had together for a life time.. Is that right ?

Here for Immigration or going anywhere for a Visa = must be married to a Thai lady, yet there are many same sex couples that have been together for many many years here and have 0 say and 0 rights.

So a man and a women get a bit of paper signed to say there are partners, called marriage paper, cannot see any problem with 2 men or 2 women getting a partnership paper so they can have equal rights

[notmyself]

>If the child is all the matters then what about a gay or lesbian child being raised by a homophobic family in a largely homophobic world. Imagine the pain the the suffering.

Nonsense

Well argued I must say.

[Nisa]

Well the marriage 'imstitution' is already pretty messed up with divorce rates so high. Introducing off topic items doesn't help either. 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.

What rights do gay & lesbian couples have ? I know couples that have been together for years, both men and women Gay couples one couple that have been together over 40 years, one had an accident, the other could not even see him in Hospital, as not a wife or family member.. if one partner dies, the remaining partner has no rights or say in anything they have or had together for a life time.. Is that right ?

Here for Immigration or going anywhere for a Visa = must be married to a Thai lady, yet there are many same sex couples that have been together for many many years here and have 0 say and 0 rights.

So a man and a women get a bit of paper signed to say there are partners, called marriage paper, cannot see any problem with 2 men or 2 women getting a partnership paper so they can have equal rights

Does the paper have to say "marriage" or can it be a "civil union" that gives all the same rights as being married? I think there is a good number of people (if not most against) who are against "gay marriage" but have no issue with granting them the same rights. It is about the sanctity of marriage.

And personally this is why I believe marriages should take place on a personal level and the government should only grant civil unions to any consenting adults wishing to enter into a legal contract. Don't most government require consummation (intercourse) for a marriage to be legal? What the hell is that? Government forcing sex on people to receive benefits or recognition???? And how does a homosexual person have intercourse when intercourse requires both a vagina and penis by definition .... forgetting about those with sexual function or organ problems being able to consummate a marriage.

Leave it up to the individuals, groups or churches they belong to define marriage and simply let the government process the paperwork which effectively creates a business partnership.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nisa

[notmyself]

The purpose of Thai "legislation" that apes Western legislation is not now, never was, and never will be about reforming Thai society. It's about Thais posturing to show themselves and their country to be "modern", "enlightened", and "up to date." It's not like they'd ever actually allow any meaningful or effective implementing regulation to be adopted let alone enforced.

Well then they are doing what it takes by talking about it and not actually acting because as far as I can tell same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in only Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

Add New Zealand and France to the list from the last couple of weeks and mostly likely the UK in the not too distant future.

[Nisa]

The purpose of Thai "legislation" that apes Western legislation is not now, never was, and never will be about reforming Thai society. It's about Thais posturing to show themselves and their country to be "modern", "enlightened", and "up to date." It's not like they'd ever actually allow any meaningful or effective implementing regulation to be adopted let alone enforced.

Well then they are doing what it takes by talking about it and not actually acting because as far as I can tell same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in only Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

Add New Zealand and France to the list from the last couple of weeks and mostly likely the UK in the not too distant future.

Not recognized in these countries yet. We can add them to the list when it becomes a reality. In NZ I don't believe it has taken effect yet (later this year) and don't believe it has been signed into law yet in France and England has still not passed any law.

Edit: Many of these countries on the list just passed laws very recently and I'd expect to see the numbers increase dramatically n the coming years and also expect Thailand to be one of these countries ... probably long before the US.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nisa

[ignis]

and mostly likely the UK in the not too distant future

Thought it had ??

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24957/gay-marriage-uk-country-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-america-falls-behind

Edit:

We can add them to the list when it becomes a reality.

23 April 2013

France has become the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage , pushing through François Hollande's flagship social change after months of street protests

Edited April 29, 2013 by ignis

[DocN]

Like the great and extremely funny Louis CK said:" What is your problem? No one is gay AT you!"

[Nisa]

and mostly likely the UK in the not too distant future

Thought it had ??

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24957/gay-marriage-uk-country-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-america-falls-behind

Edit:

>>We can add them to the list when it becomes a reality.

23 April 2013

France has become the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage , pushing through François Hollande's flagship social change after months of street protests

April 24 2013

Hollande said he would sign the bill, approved in its final second reading by parliament on Tuesday, into law as soon as France's Constitutional Council rules on a challenge filed by right-wing lawmakers. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/hollande-urges-france-to-move-on-after-g/651306.html

Bottom line is they are going to have it (if they don't already) but technically I don't think it is actually law yet. It passed the voted but believe it still needs to be signed and published. All kind of a moot point though.

The UK has only passed a bill and still more steps needed to make it law. I believe their goal is to have it law in 2015. But again a moot point. Many countries are moving in this direction but the point being it is still early but the more the do then the more will join.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nisa

[Scott]

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.

The operative work in the post is GENERALLY.

[isanbirder]

Well the marriage 'imstitution' is already pretty messed up with divorce rates so high. Introducing off topic items doesn't help either. 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.

What rights do gay & lesbian couples have ? I know couples that have been together for years, both men and women Gay couples one couple that have been together over 40 years, one had an accident, the other could not even see him in Hospital, as not a wife or family member.. if one partner dies, the remaining partner has no rights or say in anything they have or had together for a life time.. Is that right ?

Here for Immigration or going anywhere for a Visa = must be married to a Thai lady, yet there are many same sex couples that have been together for many many years here and have 0 say and 0 rights.

So a man and a women get a bit of paper signed to say there are partners, called marriage paper, cannot see any problem with 2 men or 2 women getting a partnership paper so they can have equal rights

Does the paper have to say "marriage" or can it be a "civil union" that gives all the same rights as being married? I think there is a good number of people (if not most against) who are against "gay marriage" but have no issue with granting them the same rights. It is about the sanctity of marriage.

And personally this is why I believe marriages should take place on a personal level and the government should only grant civil unions to any consenting adults wishing to enter into a legal contract. Don't most government require consummation (intercourse) for a marriage to be legal? What the hell is that? Government forcing sex on people to receive benefits or recognition???? And how does a homosexual person have intercourse when intercourse requires both a vagina and penis by definition .... forgetting about those with sexual function or organ problems being able to consummate a marriage.

Leave it up to the individuals, groups or churches they belong to define marriage and simply let the government process the paperwork which effectively creates a business partnership.

There are some countries, such as the US, where civil union and marriage are two different things.

That said, what do you think people are going to call a civil union in ordinary speech? They'll call it marriage. They won't say, "We're in a civil union"; they'll say, We're married".

So, unless there is a legal difference between the two states (i.e. civil union gives fewer rights), discussion of whether to have civil union or marriage is rather futile.... they'll boil down to the same thing in the end.

[Nisa]

Well the marriage 'imstitution' is already pretty messed up with divorce rates so high. Introducing off topic items doesn't help either. 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.

What rights do gay & lesbian couples have ? I know couples that have been together for years, both men and women Gay couples one couple that have been together over 40 years, one had an accident, the other could not even see him in Hospital, as not a wife or family member.. if one partner dies, the remaining partner has no rights or say in anything they have or had together for a life time.. Is that right ?

Here for Immigration or going anywhere for a Visa = must be married to a Thai lady, yet there are many same sex couples that have been together for many many years here and have 0 say and 0 rights.

So a man and a women get a bit of paper signed to say there are partners, called marriage paper, cannot see any problem with 2 men or 2 women getting a partnership paper so they can have equal rights

Does the paper have to say "marriage" or can it be a "civil union" that gives all the same rights as being married? I think there is a good number of people (if not most against) who are against "gay marriage" but have no issue with granting them the same rights. It is about the sanctity of marriage.

And personally this is why I believe marriages should take place on a personal level and the government should only grant civil unions to any consenting adults wishing to enter into a legal contract. Don't most government require consummation (intercourse) for a marriage to be legal? What the hell is that? Government forcing sex on people to receive benefits or recognition???? And how does a homosexual person have intercourse when intercourse requires both a vagina and penis by definition .... forgetting about those with sexual function or organ problems being able to consummate a marriage.

Leave it up to the individuals, groups or churches they belong to define marriage and simply let the government process the paperwork which effectively creates a business partnership.

There are some countries, such as the US, where civil union and marriage are two different things.

That said, what do you think people are going to call a civil union in ordinary speech? They'll call it marriage. They won't say, "We're in a civil union"; they'll say, We're married".

So, unless there is a legal difference between the two states (i.e. civil union gives fewer rights), discussion of whether to have civil union or marriage is rather futile.... they'll boil down to the same thing in the end.

Not at all. Many people are married now but not legally. You can get married in a ceremony in a church or elsewhere and not file a legal document with the government ... and many people do this and this is the way it should be .... none of the governments business. On the other hand if you want to enter into what amount as a legally binding business relationship then you should be welcome to do this and you can define yourself as being in a civil union or whatever term is easy to use. The government can even come up with a 1 or 2 syllable word if there is great objection to having to say something harder than marriage.

Marriage is something the government recognized from the church but it now has become something the government dictates. To further separate church and state marriage is a business the government needs to get out of.

Edit: Interesting to note too in some places people don't get married and never wanted to get married but the government declares them legally married such as with common law marriage.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nisa

[notmyself]

Marriage is something the government recognized from the church but it now has become something the government dictates. To further separate church and state marriage is a business the government needs to get out of.

Better for the Church to get out of the business

[isanbirder]

Nisa, my comments only referred to marriage and civil union in a gay context. Most of your comments refer to heterosexual marriage, often in a religious context.

Government doesn't dictate language. People generally take the easy way out. A good example is the word 'gay', which started off as a slang word for homosexual, and then became the usual word simply because it was easy.

[jacko45k]

This is stupid, homosexuals should hav the sames right as heterosexuals do, they should be able to get married, adopt etc the same that hetero.

Homosexuals do have the same rights as other people. They're free to marry a person of the opposite sex any time they like, just like the rest of us. This current fad for same sex "marriage" undermines and trivialises the importance of real marriage. Before long they'll be demanding the right to marry their dog, their mother, their iPad or God knows what else. Where does it stop?

It is a situation of where does it all end.

If same sex marriages, why not multiple partner marriages, as in Islam and Mormon religions.

Then any sense of 'equality' is mocked.

[Om85]

This is stupid, homosexuals should hav the sames right as heterosexuals do, they should be able to get married, adopt etc the same that hetero.

Homosexuals do have the same rights as other people. They're free to marry a person of the opposite sex any time they like, just like the rest of us. This current fad for same sex "marriage" undermines and trivialises the importance of real marriage. Before long they'll be demanding the right to marry their dog, their mother, their iPad or God knows what else. Where does it stop?

It is a situation of where does it all end.

If same sex marriages, why not multiple partner marriages, as in Islam and Mormon religions.

Then any sense of 'equality' is mocked.

Nothing wrong with that, if one man and some women one to live together and want to get married, why not? whats wrong with that?Marriage is nothing holly or sacrosant, marriage is just a legal institution to say that in the eyes of the law you and your partners are familly and therefore have certain rights and duties, nothing more nothing else.

[Nisa]

Marriage is something the government recognized from the church but it now has become something the government dictates. To further separate church and state marriage is a business the government needs to get out of.

Better for the Church to get out of the business

Sounds like you might be more interested in negative attention than actually looking for equal rights.