Same-Sex Union Bill No Cause For Celebration

[how241]

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

+1

[Fullstop]

What's the difference between "bisexual" and "intersex"? Actually, I've never heard of the expression "intersex"

Is an "intersex" person someone who has sex with "anything/anybody"? Holes in trees? Cheese graters? dead wombats?

[Jingthing]

What's the difference between "bisexual" and "intersex"? Actually, I've never heard of the expression "intersex"

Is an "intersex" person someone who has sex with "anything/anybody"? Holes in trees? Cheese graters? dead wombats?

Oy,

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm

[princessa]

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?

We hear ya. Because clearly asking for marriage equality is a "fad" in a world where closeted gays are humping each other while being hetero-married otherwise.

I've never seen any real stats about long term societal effects of legalizing same-sex marriage, but I and many others will see it in our lifetimes.

Meanwhile, you are free to move to Iran and enjoy your "real" marriage with up to whatever wives they're allowing over there, and maybe have some undercover mother/dog/ipad play too.

[KhunNene]

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??

According to your way of thinking, the point could aswell be if a different sex couple cand adopt young boys .... but what is with the 1 % where real bad things happen?

[Fullstop]

Oy,

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm

Well I'll be damned! "Intersex" is "hermaphroditism". I lead a sheltered life. So hard to keep up with the latest buzzwords. Edited April 28, 2013 by Fullstop

[KhunNene]

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.

I think a move toward extincion is polluting the water of rivers and lakes, and since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, heterosexuals bear a great ammount of guilt in polluting rivers and lakes, therefore heterosexuals actively contribute toward extincion.

[HerbalEd]

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?

You're missing a big point. It's not just marrying per se, it's having the legal and civil rights of a married couple.

[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.

Edited April 28, 2013 by rayw

[Jingthing]

I gotta say that these gay marriages aren't really that great. The last thing the world needs is an HIV explosion.

That's not logical dude. Gay people exist. If you're concerned about excessive promiscuity as a contributor to HIV infection, then you would think any and all kinds of marriages would be promoting less promiscuity. Also of course as I'm sure you are aware the majority of HIV infections in history have not been via gay sex practices.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[KhunNene]

I gotta say that these gay marriages aren't really that great. The last thing the world needs is an HIV explosion.

So may be you should read facts like these http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/hiv-infection-rates-soar-among-poor-heterosexuals_n_2876339.html

[raybal5]

Religion has never been one of my priorities so can anyone tell where Buddhism stands on homosexuality ?

I don't think Buddha ever got into it specifically but am sure since then some have put there own spin on it.

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm

[HerbalEd]

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??

Then that would be much better odds that the real bad things that happen to kids in heterosexual marriages.

[Jingthing]

Is Thailand a Buddhist theocracy?

[Rimmer]

Over the top post and quoted replies removed

[HerbalEd]

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.

[tpop]

I wonder what visitors from outer space might think of us

coming upon us now or in the not so distant future when our population pressures lead us to exhibit every one of the traits that Calhoun wrote about

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1644264/pdf/procrsmed00338-0007.pdf

there are so many levels to the issue

it seems that it can't be possible for people to see themselves from a distance - we are all in the mix no matter how much we try and pretend otherwise

consequently, we either tackle population issues or we adapt to all expressions of population pressure - no matter how they might be perceived by those who have been fortunate enough not to have been immediately impacted upon by them

when a sick society isolates any group and identifies it as more sick than some other group in some deluded hope that this will fix the problem you know that the end can not be far away

and if any group perceived by others to be sick pretends that by having their nature validated under law they will somehow automagically no longer be party to the problems inherent in the system

they too beckon the end

the end for us - will it be the same - will their be the "beautiful ones" incapable of social integration leading lives of isolation from those that abandon and cannibalism their babies them all of them crying all the while that because it is now normal it must too be accepted as part of the scheme of things?

i do not know but i certainly hope we are not like Calhoun's mice

tpop

[HerbalEd]

I gotta say that these gay marriages aren't really that great. The last thing the world needs is an HIV explosion.

So may be you should read facts like these http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/hiv-infection-rates-soar-among-poor-heterosexuals_n_2876339.html

Please don't confuse the guy with facts. That's too much intellectual work.

[Simhne]

I hope the 3 representatives of the LGBTI community on the panel are able to continue their advocacy for the community in Thailand and that they feel supported in what is surely a challenging role. Unhelpful and frankly bizarre suggestions such as the homosexuality test must continue to be challenged.

I'd be interested to know the composition of the panel from a party political perspective and how their views divide as such. It's also worth commenting what a well written article the OP is.

[bri1guy]

Religion has never been one of my priorities so can anyone tell where Buddhism stands on homosexuality ?

I don't think Buddha ever got into it specifically but am sure since then some have put there own spin on it.

Buddhist is embodied in what is called the Five Precepts (panca sila),

the third of which relates to sexual behaviour. Whether or not homosexuality,

sexual behaviour between people of the same sex, would Not be breaking the third

Precept.

The third Precept actually says: 'Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam

samadiyami.' The word kama refers to any form of sensual pleasure but

with an emphasis on sexual pleasure and a literal translation of the precept

would be "I take the rule of training (veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami)

not to go the wrong way (micchacara) for sexual pleasure

(kamesu)". In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where

adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love,

respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it

is the same when the two people are of the same gender.

Lastly, However the Buddha sometimes advised against certain

behaviour not because it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because

it would put one at odds with social norms or because its is subject to legal

sanctions. In these cases, the Buddha says that refraining from such behaviour

will free one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval or

the fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly come under this type

of behaviour. In this case, the homosexual has to decide whether she or he is

going to acquiesce to what society expects or to try to change public attitudes.

[A Member]

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 ?

[Jingthing]

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 ?

Marriage equality is just one aspect of equal civil rights. There are many other kinds of discrimination issues: housing, employment, immigration, etc. What you suggest is NEVER going to happen anyway. It is NEVER going to happen in any theocratic country especially Islamic ones. The gay parades mean different things in different countries depending on the stage of civil rights of that country (from just an excuse for a commercialized big party to being revolutionary). They are not even legal in some countries and in many countries just trying that would be suicide for the participants. I think you make an assumption many people make, that marriage equality is the whole thing. It ain't.

In the USA, St. Patrick's Day parades are popular in cities with big Irish ethnic communities. Irish are allowed to marry. Should they quit the parades? Duh.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[DocN]

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??

You mean like in "heterosexual families", where dad is a drinker and beats up wife and children?

[KhunNene]

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 ?

I do not think they celebrate being different. I think they just demand rights and equal rights, in a colourfull manner.

[tpop]

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

[khunken]

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 should they?

Has the Brazilian Mardi Gras been shelved because heteros have rights? Granting same sex rights doesn't alter the fact that they are different from the majority. Parades are organised for many reasons & are mostly a celebration of some date sports win or local event. What the hell is wrong with them?

[khh]

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.

with humanity's population at a record high that's a strange statement to make. you could instead take the view that same sex marriage relieves pressure on the planet by (slightly) reducing population growth.

many gay couples either don't want children or would rather adopt than go to the trouble (legal and practical) of making their own.

for gays who do want their own biological children, if the only way to have them is by marrying partners they have zero sexual attraction to, that means a lot of unhappy marriages. how happy would you be marrying someone you find completely sexually unattractive, just because you want to have a baby?

and being born to unhappily married parents is not a good prescription for mental health.

also gays who marry straightly to appease their parents / appease society / dispel rumors they're gay so they can live in peace without fear of being attacked being denied jobs etc... are much more likely to have children by accident (or to appease their parents etc) than if they're not "required" to marry straightly against their wishes. that means both more children and more unwanted children.

Edited April 28, 2013 by khh

[khh]

 

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.

gays fleeing sexual persecution have been known to have the same basic problem applying for refugee status in western countries, being expected to put on make up and speak with a lisp etc or risk being deported.

in the event of "no gay marriage without proof of gayness" the idea might be to discourage people from taking it lightly (like psychological tests before sex change operations -- which i think are a good idea), or the idea might be to humiliate people, or the idea might be to prevent fraud, or a combination.

but since there's never going to be a heterosexuality test for straight marriage (and bisexuals would be stuck in a gray area anyway), i don't see this plan succeeding.

[h90]

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??

You're confusing issues here. The bill isn't about decriminalizing homosexuality or homosexual acts. It's about legal recognition of RELATIONSHIPS.

By your red herring pedo scare argument, NOBODY should be allowed children, as the majority of pedo crimes in the world happen in heterosexual families.

The article says ""legalise same-sex relationships" not me...They aren't illegal now.

I doubt that most pedo crimes happen in normal hetero families....just the cases I usually read are either some catholic priests (or their environment), some school/free time organization or some other family member (uncle). That some father rape his sons may happen but I doubt it is the majority. But that is not the point. People get children and you can't forbid that. But if you give orphans to a family that take care it is the responsibility of the society to take special care on who to give it.

And of course people who can theoretically get children themself is the best choice.

[h90]

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??

You mean like in "heterosexual families", where dad is a drinker and beats up wife and children?

So gay people don't drink, and should be allowed to also beat other children who we gave in their care?

Your argument is very strange....