Same-Sex Union Bill No Cause For Celebration

[Jingthing]

zhou - you seem confued

"not a special same-sex civil union law."

The idea is to change the law to INCLUDE gay couples....hence EQUAL RAIGHTS

The Thai government appears not to endorse this idea of equal civil rights. Rather they seem perhaps interested in putting sexual minorities in a separate box of lesser civil rights, cemented into Thai law. As I've said in another thread, such a bill would not be better than nothing for sexual minority rights in Thailand. It would be WORSE than nothing. For Thai sexual minorities to freely consent to this institution, IF it passes would be consenting to agreeing they are not only less than, but MUCH less than. Unacceptable for advocates of civil rights.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law.

I imagine some asking the applicant.. "are you now, or have you ever been a practicing homosexual"

sound familiar to anyone ??

Can you give any references for that? I have been following this for some time and I have never heard this mentioned before.

I can't help wondering if its a written test, an oral exam, or a practical one. Hopefully its practical and multiple choice!

[Jingthing]

I don't think this homosexual test thing is at all funny. Again, where is the heterosexual test? Heterosexuals have NO TEST for a vastly superior institution, marriage. It seems now the gays are being offered the dregs, and even for that, there is a test. Thai gay activists were looking for EQUALITY. They ain't getting that anytime soon. That seems very clear.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/thai-same-sex-marriage-infographic050612

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law.

I imagine some asking the applicant.. "are you now, or have you ever been a practicing homosexual"

sound familiar to anyone ??

Can you give any references for that? I have been following this for some time and I have never heard this mentioned before.

I can't help wondering if its a written test, an oral exam, or a practical one. Hopefully its practical and multiple choice!

Depends on the examiner:

Yes please!

No thanks...

[Nisa]

a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law.

I imagine some asking the applicant.. "are you now, or have you ever been a practicing homosexual"

sound familiar to anyone ??

Can you give any references for that? I have been following this for some time and I have never heard this mentioned before.

I can't help wondering if its a written test, an oral exam, or a practical one. Hopefully its practical and multiple choice!

Pretty sure there is no talk of a homosexual test (it would serve no purpose) but rather some kind of test / benchmark to help see if the relationship is real and somebody is not trying to scam something such as people pretending to have a real marriage for Visas. However, still not cool as they don't do it for heterosexual couples ... the again many places do require a consummation (intercourse) to make the marriage fully legitimate and it is impossible for two physically normal people of the same sex to have intercourse ... at least by definition.

[Jingthing]

Pretty sure there is no talk of a homosexual test (it would serve no purpose) but rather some kind of test / benchmark to help see if the relationship is real and somebody is not trying to scam something such as people pretending to have a real marriage for Visas. However, still not cool as they don't do it for heterosexual couples ... the again many places do require a consummation (intercourse) to make the marriage fully legitimate and it is impossible for two physically normal people of the same sex to have intercourse ... at least by definition.

There is no talk of a homosexuality test?

No, there IS talk of a homosexuality test according to the article in the OP.

As yet, nobody has presented any news source saying this report from the Nation about homosexuality tests is not true. Assuming then there is some truth to it, we are still waiting for more DETAILS on exactly what they mean.

Worse, a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[Nisa]

Pretty sure there is no talk of a homosexual test (it would serve no purpose) but rather some kind of test / benchmark to help see if the relationship is real and somebody is not trying to scam something such as people pretending to have a real marriage for Visas. However, still not cool as they don't do it for heterosexual couples ... the again many places do require a consummation (intercourse) to make the marriage fully legitimate and it is impossible for two physically normal people of the same sex to have intercourse ... at least by definition.

There is no talk of a homosexuality test?

No, there IS talk of a homosexuality test according to the article in the OP.

As yet, nobody has presented any news source saying this report from the Nation about homosexuality tests is not true. Assuming then there is some truth to it, we are still waiting for more DETAILS on exactly what they mean.

Worse, a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law.

To be clear the OP is not a news article. It is a biased opinion piece in the form of an anonymous editorial to be exact. The odds of there being a gay test are slim to none.

How mentioned was the "homosexuality test" test? How many people were for it? Was it just some ultra conservative nut job who brought it up a couple times as do the these types bring up idiotic proposals in government in just about every country in the world on these types of subject?

Until we know more, such as such a test being actually considered or for that matter proposed officially, I really wouldn't get worked up about this unless jumping to conclusions and running with and not so real facts is your thing.

[Jingthing]

...

The odds of there being a gay test are slim to none.

...

Thanks for sharing your OPINION. Which it seems to me is only based on a blind guess. I don't believe the Nation writer made this up. Gay test does not have to mean something as extreme as pictures of sex acts. You get that, right?

[Nisa]

...

The odds of there being a gay test are slim to none.

...

Thanks for sharing your OPINION. Which it seems to me is only based on a blind guess. I don't believe the Nation writer made this up. Gay test does not have to mean something as extreme as pictures of sex acts. You get that, right?

No need to point out my comments are an opinion as is most of the posts here and we don't refer to another poster's posts as articles as you did the opinion piece this thread is based. Calling it an article gives more legitimacy than it deserves especially when it is clear it is only focusing on negative.

Although I expressed opinions (as I am now), my opinion is based on logic as opposed to emotion as I believe what is motivating much of your opinions. There is no logic in coming out with a law to ease discrimination by creating insulting discrimination. Logic dictates a test was brought up and will never be enacted as part of the law and that the test was about proving a relationship was real and it was probably not a a group thought but rather came from one individual who hadn't thought through a test would be worthless (easily fooled), expensive and not solve the issue of discrimination. The number of non-gay people wanting to entering into a marriage, for whatever reason, with somebody of the same sex is going to be so small that it makes no sense to test for such a thing. And if somebody was determined to enter into a same sex marriage who wasn't a homosexual they'd have no problem posing in a picturing (extreme example as you indicated) that makes them appear to be a homosexual.

Is it possible they may have a test? Certainly and they may also have a rule that says to be fully homosexual you must engage in anal sex and that gender roles in the marriage will be defined by this but that along with the gay test is almost certainly not going to be part of any revised laws.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Nisa

[Jingthing]

Laws aren't necessarily LOGICAL. In Thailand. Or anywhere. I have a source for my opinion. You don't.

I hope you are right and they drop this homosexual test business.

Also your idealistic notion that this law as now developing is designed to ease discrimination is a big stretch. Note the issue with PARENTAL rights. More like: lack of.

This is a VERY SERIOUS issue both for sexual minorities with existing children and those who may wish them in the future.

I really don't think Thailand is anywhere near the level of consciousness where a REAL equality scheme for sexual minorities has any chance of passing.

IF they had really been serious about this, they would have introduced a REAL marriage equality proposal. It ain't rocket science. Over 10 countries internationally have now done it. For any country getting into this issue now, that's the natural modern solution, as was done in New Zealand.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Pretty sure there is no talk of a homosexual test (it would serve no purpose) but rather some kind of test / benchmark to help see if the relationship is real and somebody is not trying to scam something such as people pretending to have a real marriage for Visas. However, still not cool as they don't do it for heterosexual couples ... the again many places do require a consummation (intercourse) to make the marriage fully legitimate and it is impossible for two physically normal people of the same sex to have intercourse ... at least by definition.

There is no talk of a homosexuality test?

No, there IS talk of a homosexuality test according to the article in the OP.

As yet, nobody has presented any news source saying this report from the Nation about homosexuality tests is not true. Assuming then there is some truth to it, we are still waiting for more DETAILS on exactly what they mean.

>Worse, a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law.

I think you need to re-attend Logic 101

[sustento]

Laws aren't necessarily LOGICAL. In Thailand. Or anywhere. I have a source for my opinion. You don't.

I hope you are right and they drop this homosexual test business.

Also your idealistic notion that this law as now developing is designed to ease discrimination is a big stretch. Note the issue with PARENTAL rights. More like: lack of.

This is a VERY SERIOUS issue both for sexual minorities with existing children and those who may wish them in the future.

I really don't think Thailand is anywhere near the level of consciousness where a REAL equality scheme for sexual minorities has any chance of passing.

IF they had really been serious about this, they would have introduced a REAL marriage equality proposal. It ain't rocket science. Over 10 countries internationally have now done it. For any country getting into this issue now, that's the natural modern solution, as was done in New Zealand.

They'll get round to it when it suits them. I suspect that they're completely uninterested in the opinions of frenetic foreigners.

[Nisa]

I have a source for my opinion. You don't.

And your source is an anonymous and biased opinion piece of somebody clearly only looking at and doing his or her best to show something in a negative light. I have tried searching the news and web for anything related to Thailand and a gay or homosexual test but found nothing but this unknown person's writings from a source known for not doing much fact checking in actual news stories let alone an opinion piece. Wouldn't you think given the climate now on this topic globally that such a recommendation for a Homosexual Test as a precursor to allowing gay marriage would be in the news somewhere? I mean that is the kind of news story that gets attention ... just look at your reaction to a non-news article written by an unknown person with nothing to back up any claim.

It is possible it happened and it is possible Thailand wants to have a gay test because they fear hetrosexuals in Thailand want to officially register as homosexuals but my point is you should really take this OP with a grain of salt until something a bit more credible comes out on the topic.

And again, my personal opinion / suspicion is this is BS and a twisting of the facts that unknown writer is using to help him paint a doom and gloom picture of people getting together with the goal of allowing gay marriages in Thailand.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Nisa

[ignis]

how to explain ?

Appears to be the following heterosexual married is both parties have rights under the Law....... even in forced marriages..

or as this topic homosexual both parties have NO rights under the Law.....

We then have heterosexual that have lived together for years.. some men and women together, some 2 men together, most often 2 women together..

We then have homosexual men and women NON sexual that live together, 2 men NON sexual live together and 2 women, NON sexual live together..

Do any of these have any rights under the Law ?

Some of these have lived together for 10, 20, 30+ years, same as gay men and gay women in relationships together..

It is far more that just a bit of paper to say your married... Housing rights? Hospital rights, Pension rights, and so on..

Not 100% sure but a married couple here, if the owner of house dies then the non Thai has 1 year to leave/sell arrange things, a gay couple, the non Thai has 7 days !! same as 2 people that have lived together, bought everything 50/50 for years no matter heterosexual or homosexual = NO rights.... have seen it happen time and time again, no joke for a 70 year old that has lived together not married for 40 years be be out in the street homeless.

[sbk]

I have a source for my opinion. You don't.

And your source is an anonymous and biased opinion piece of somebody clearly only looking at and doing his or her best to show something in a negative light. I have tried searching the news and web for anything related to Thailand and a gay or homosexual test but found nothing

Just as an FYI Nisa, normally an Editorial Opinion is written by the Editor and is not considered "some anonymous source" when credited as an Editorial Opinion as this was.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/page-1

pornpimol kanchanalak

[Jingthing]

And again, my personal opinion / suspicion is this is BS and a twisting of the facts that unknown writer is using to help him paint a doom and gloom picture of people getting together with the goal of allowing gay marriages in Thailand.

No. No we don't. We KNOW they were NOT meeting to "allow" gay MARRIAGE. Gay MARRIAGE is nowhere near on the agenda for the government of Thailand. That is not ambiguous. Real EQUALITY is off the table for now and probably for decades.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

They'll get round to it when it suits them. I suspect that they're completely uninterested in the opinions of frenetic foreigners.

That could be true but lets not delude ourselves that what is being discussed now by the Thai government is anything like marriage equality for Thai sexual minorities.

[Nisa]

And again, my personal opinion / suspicion is this is BS and a twisting of the facts that unknown writer is using to help him paint a doom and gloom picture of people getting together with the goal of allowing gay marriages in Thailand.

No. No we don't. We KNOW they were NOT meeting to "allow" gay MARRIAGE. Gay MARRIAGE is nowhere near on the agenda for the government of Thailand. That is not ambiguous. Real EQUALITY is off the table for now and probably for decades.

My bad, I should not have used the word marriage but it appears the purpose of the meeting was in regards "to legalise same-sex relationships". In other words I assume the goal of the meeting was to discuss moving forward and not backwards. While it may upset you that they are not where you believe they should be as quickly as they should be, the fact things are even being discussed are a steps in the right direction even if the steps forward are mixed in with side steps and some back steps.

By no means should folks interested in this subject settle for anything less than fairness under the law but sometimes by showing some understanding to others, as pro-gay marriage folks want for themselves, goes a long way in getting to your ultimate goal.

Homosexual relationships have been seen differently at different times throughout history and we've just come off an extremely long period period where it was viewed very very negatively by most cultures as well as being seen as a disease. It is incredible how far things have come in just the last decades considering the generations of negative teachings and stereotypes people have been taught. Usually by being grateful for people's efforts, which are difficult for them, while explaining it isn't enough will get you to your goal much quicker than making the other side feel like you are spitting in their face for their efforts.

I know you have heard this many times as I have seen it said in various ways to you on this board to you a number of times but taking certain stands and over the top positions may do more harm for what somebody claims to be their goals than actually getting people to understand and support their goals. It is not that difficult to join a cause and have one's passion for that cause consume them to the point that they lose sight of their goals and instead feed on the fighting to the point of not realizing they are preventing progress to continue the fight. Not to mention their passions turns into anger and lashing out at as well as turning people away who would normally be proponents.

Anyway - that is my final thoughts as I do believe and support efforts that all consenting adults should have the right to form a union or partnership and be considered family in the eyes of the law and be treated fairly under the law be they gay, straight, asexual, relatives, polygamists or any other consenting adults. So, I am happy when I see any steps bringing this closer to happening and although it is important to keep reminding people we are not there yet but screaming at them because their steps are too small or for not fully believing in the same standards I do is generally the best way not to have them hear me.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Nisa

[Jingthing]

The problem as described in the Nation is not too small steps, but steps BACKWARDS.

My feeling is that mainstream Thais are massively ignorant about gay issues.

I think most Thais think gay people and ladyboys are the same thing. Wrong.

I think most are indoctrinated with a Buddhist dogma that sees being gay as a PUNISHMENT for past lives. Similar to the way handicapped people are seen.

Kind of similar to the Christian sin thing. Also similar to the old "disease vision" of westernized homophobia.

I think mainstream Thai attitudes is that sexual minorities exist for ENTERTAINMENT purposes, something to be laughed at, to joke about, to see in a freak show.

I think at this early stage, yes sexual minorities are deeply stigmatized here and putting them into an officialized separate box which formally institutionalizes their perceived inferiority is arguably NOT PROGRESS.

Homophobia in Thailand is Thai style homophobia. But it is STILL homophobia.

Thai gay advocates can do what they like, of course.

However, if I were them, I would tell the government: THANKS BUT NO THANKS. (At this time.)

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[rayw]

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?

I hate flaming and do not usually practice it BUT in this case wow what an arrogant narrow minded self centred response !!! Where is your tolerance of others and their wishes and needs that lets face it should not affect your lifestyle preferences in any way?

I am personally heterosexual but I AM tolerant and leave everyone's sexually to themselves as it is entirely their concern, not mine nor yours. So sod all and any such repressive unnecessary laws that take away people's basic sexual freedoms between consenting adults. Parenthood should also of course be entirely based on ability, care and love that is, can and will be shown to children in people's care. Jeez there are many many heterosexual couples who from what you see and hear have no right to be left in charge of a cat let alone any child, and yet other gay couples who can offer a caring and responsible upbringing to children too. It is NOT about sexuality at all, but about the character and goodness of those who are to be parents. What religion thinks is absolutely irrelevant and I resent their interference in human freedom, except for those folk who freely wish to strictly follow their religion, but that is purely their own free choice not theirs to try to take away other people' free choice by laws and / or force and threats.

Jeez I thought it was 2013. COME ON NOW WE NEED TO PREACH AND PRACTICE TOLERANCE THESE DAYS MORE THAN EVER. LIVE AND LET LIVE.

Yeah yeah yeah, we all think tolerance is great, but do you have any red lines when it comes to marriage or does anything go? For instance, in some countries - Yemen and Bangladesh for example - it has been the cultural norm for millennia to marry very young girls to much older men. Many countries consider female genital mutilation to be part of their culture. I wouldn't have any tolerance for those practices. Would you? Or will you stick with toleration of other peoples sexual practices no matter what?

For the record, I have no objection to GLBT and-all-the-rest-of-it people living the lives they choose but marriage is a man-woman institution and not to be messed with.

Of course I do not condone the infringement of human rights and forcing folk into anything that is not of their free will. I am talking of course about consenting adults as I thought was clear for anyone to see.

Who said marriage was an exclusive man-woman institution? Some daft and dubious outdated thousand year old misguided and so often misquoted religious doctrine hmm. Jeez who wants to live back in those barbaric, ill informed and bigoted dark old days? What consenting adults do, or can legally agree to do, and that should have no avoidable effect on others, is truly and surely not a problem, so do not try to make it one. Let people live their lives how they best see fit, as long as of course it only affects themselves. Sexual practices once again are between consenting adults, so YES I clearly say anything goes in that respect whether it is for me or not, so it is not my concern nor yours nor anyone else's. Surely the very last thing we need is repressive and intolerant laws against any such consenting practices. So please learn that important lesson in life and learn TOLERANCE, rather than trying to enforce a society that has to comply with your what may well be a narrow minded view of life,

Honestly I cannot believe I am hearing such antiquated, bigoted and arrogant self centred stuff in the 21st century. Get real and get tolerant of others hmm !!!!!!!! Sorry I do not mean to flame you at all as I loathe flaming, hurting folks feelings and all the idiots who do it, but I just hope it will make you think a little more about others in this world and what their needs and aspirations are. By all means keep your own feelings and opinions on these issues but do not try to force them totally unnecessarily on others, remember LIVE AND LET LIVE.

Edited May 2, 2013 by rayw

[Jingthing]

Bottom line my take is the traditionalist Thai government people (as well as some posters here) are telling the Thai gay advocates they are TOO UPPITY.

If that is the case, my feeling is the Thai gay advocates are on the right track.

Demand to be treated with dignity and equality and never settle for less and definitely push back if you are offered something painted as progress that is actually the opposite.

Rosa Parks was let on the bus, but being forced to only sit on the back of the bus wasn't good enough for her. She is an inspiration to civil rights supporters of all kinds the world over.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I wonder what they mean exactly by homosexuality test.

For example, this is the way it is in Turkey:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/turkish-military-pink-certificate-gay_n_1379823.html

Having grown a few days' beard at the time of the inquiry, Ahmet

adds, "They asked me if I liked football, whether I wore woman's clothes

or used woman's perfume...they told me I didn't look like a normal gay

man.'' He was then asked to provide a picture of himself dressed as a

woman.

In another case, the article notes, a Turkish gay man provided

explicit photos of himself having sex with another man in order to

obtain an exemption. ''The face must be visible,'' the man, identified

only as Gokhan, noted. ''And the photos must show you as the passive

partner.''

This is typical in the more backwards countries, the idiotic assumption that only PASSIVE partners and men who look and act like women can actually really be gay men.

Thailand is another country where it seems the majority of the general public doesn't really understand the difference between transgender issues and homosexuality.

While I doubt the proposed Thailand homosexuality test is as odious as in Turkey, the concept of a homosexuality test is most definitely a very serious RED FLAG to Thai civil rights advocates.

JT, as you well know since this was discussed at some length a while ago in the Gay Forum this is NOT a "homosexuality test" intended to identify whether someone in Turkey is gay or not. It is a test deliberately designed to be intrusive and possibly unpleasant in order to deter anyone, gay or straight, from using real or assumed homosexuality in order to avoid military conscription - nothing more.

Whether LGBT/gays or conscription is beneficial or detrimental to the military are separate issues, but this particular "test" has no relevance to this thread.

[Jingthing]

Excuse me, but NONE of us here have heard the specific details of these proposed Thailand homosexuality tests. So nobody can say definitely what is relevant and what is not relevant until we hear these details. If ever, that is, because I am predictng there will be NO BILL. I am well aware of the purpose of the Turkey thing.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

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.

Generally I'd agree with you, IB, and I'm perfectly happy that my UK Civil Partnership gives me identical rights*, in the UK, to marriage as well as the same rights as marriage in those countries that recognize gay marriage.

"Equality", in my view, is overrated as none of us are created equal and we never will be - neither can or should we all have "equal rights". I don't, for example, begrudge the handicapped the right to have additional toilet and parking facilities that are not only specifically designed/located for them but are reserved for them; similarly none of us have equal rights to things as basic as schooling, medical treatment, etc.

My only reservation is the privacy issue, as my Civil Partnership is pretty clear evidence of my sexual preference. I don't make a secret of being gay and I am neither ashamed nor proud of it - its simply the way I was born, but I don't see why I should be obliged to tell anyone my sexual preference or to register it whenever I have to fill in a form asking if I am "married/widowed/single/ etc".

[Jingthing]

In any case, IF Thailand passes this current civil union law (I predict not) it will not be nearly EQUAL to marriage under Thai law. This isn't the UK so let's not PROJECT. We aren't talking about civil unions that are exactly the same as marriage except for a word in Thailand. We're talking about a cheap limited rights version. BTW, I see no logical reason at all why same sex couples (except in theocracies, they are hopeless) should not have completely EQUAL access to the same institution of marriage as heterosexuals. Of course people are different. We are only talking about EQUALITY under the LAWS of nations here. Nothing more and nothing less.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

...In THAILAND, which is the country we are talking about the proposal involves a homosexuality test for the civil unions. This is the not the idea from gay rights advocates. This is a horrible idea from government elements who have no interest in equality for sexual minorities in Thailand. ....

According to WHO?

Even according to the Nation article, which is the only place where I can find any such reference, it only says that "a "homosexuality test" was repeatedly mentioned as precondition for relationship registration under this law". It makes NO reference to who "repeatedly mentioned" it, whether it was the "government elements" you claim or the opposition (presumably in the form of the Democrats and Wirath Kalayasiri who sponsored the Bill) or some of the Bill's opponents who attended the meetings where the Bill was discussed or even some deluded "gay rights advocates".

Just what are you basing this information on?

[rubl]

Gotten bored with the political colourful shirt topics I had a look here. Not sure if that's a real improvement though.

Anyway, being Dutch I try to live with the motto 'live and let live' Personally I have no problem with same-sex marriages or partnerships or whatever you want to call it. I even think that rights and privileges traditionally reserved for man-woman relations should extend to same-sex couples. With civilisations somewhat conservative regarding changes I can imagine resistance and reluctance. Still change will come.

BTW regarding relations one might want to read The Forever War from Joe Haldeman. The long war even has times with officially promoted same-sex relations amongst the Armed Forces :-) Of course the reasoning behind support is somewhat controversial. 2023:

""Most governments encourage homosexuality the United Nations is neutral, leaves it up to the individual countries they encourage homolife mainly because it's the one sure method of birth control.""

[Jingthing]

Oh please. We've been over this before. The information is from the Nation article. Nobody else has presented one other source proving the Nation article about that is false. It doesn't mean it is true either. I have already said with new information, opinions would naturally be adjusted. This is the information we have. If you have better information: PRESENT IT.

[LeCharivari]

Oh please. We've been over this before. The information is from the Nation article. Nobody else has presented one other source proving the Nation article about that is false. It doesn't mean it is true either. I have already said with new information, opinions would naturally be adjusted. This is the information we have. If you have better information: PRESENT IT.

No, JT, this is NOT "the information we have."

The "information" you are giving here is NOT "from the Nation article" which does NOT say that "a homosexual test" is in the proposed bill or ever has been. It simply says that a test has been "repeatedly mentioned", nothing more.

What you are saying is your interpretation of the article, which itself is ambiguous, misleading and incorrect*.

Can I "PRESENT" ... "better information"? As sustento so succinctly put it, "I think you need to re-attend Logic 101"

* The editorial says that ""Thai lawmakers should have followed international good practices ...none of the fourteen marriage equality countries did this ... all remaining countries amended their marriage laws to remove gendered language." Its actually 12 countries (a minor error) but the author has ignored not only that a number of these countries already accepted de facto gay marriage and did not jump from nothing to gay marriage in one leap, but that 22 countries have civil partnerships which some (such as France and the UK) are currently changing to "gay" marriage.

Edited May 2, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

I interpreted the text from the Nation one way; you interpreted it another way and then blatantly distort what I have actually said ... (yet again ).

Neither of us know what really happened with any degree of confidence. Cheers. Awaiting further clarification from the wonderful press of Thailand.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing