Same-Sex Union Bill No Cause For Celebration

[wilcopops]

"they will never experience the many nuances of experiences and cultural differences having to do with male and female. There will be no mom and dad balance, do you want to be raised this way or have your family members raised in such a home? "

yes of course just like every family has a perfact male female balance etc etc.......makes you wonder if the poster has ever heard of single parenting, adoption or divorce?

Edited April 29, 2013 by wilcopops

[notmyself]

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the Thailand Govt. becomes its official and active promoter. The Govt. will call on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, order public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishe any Govt. employee who expresses disapproval.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the Govt. will expect all Religious folks to betray their beliefs and consciences by condoning, through silence or act.

The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

It's hard enough now raising children by the biological parents nevermind children being raised by gay partners who are not related to them, and how this may affect the children. they will never experience the many nuances of experiences and cultural differences having to do with male and female. There will be no mom and dad balance, do you want to be raised this way or have your family members raised in such a home?

This movement has nothing to do with equality, right to marry etc.. it has to do with making the Govt. and people of Thailand accept their lifestyle.

Just because I don't believe in the Gay movement and their beliefs, it doesn't make me a homophobe, gay basher etc.

If you want to accept this movement fine, just don't try and put it on me, as I'm entitled to my beliefs as well, with the right to protect and promote them.

Don't be a hater... because I'm a Straight Guy.

It does not impose anything. Do not worry, nobody is going to force you to marry another straight guy.

And to add to the list....

If you don't believe in contraception then don't use it.

If you think eating pork or beef is wrong then don't eat it.

Freedom, including religious freedom is not freedom to impose your beliefs on others.

[dickyknee]

A loving couple wants to adopt a child, but in the childs best interests, the child should be left an orphan because the potential adoptive parents are gay. I'm not sure if the childrens interests are actually the priority in this argument.

Edited April 29, 2013 by dickyknee

[Potosi]

Assumptions assumptions........I see now that people are making wild and inaccurate assumptions about homosexuality in nature.

Homosexuality in the wild is not rare and it can well be argued that it actually can be beneficial to a species when males undertake a different set of roles in a community.

Yeah. They provide pleasure without the consequences of having to care for offsprings. The whole point of homosexuality.

[Jingthing]

Assumptions assumptions........I see now that people are making wild and inaccurate assumptions about homosexuality in nature.

Homosexuality in the wild is not rare and it can well be argued that it actually can be beneficial to a species when males undertake a different set of roles in a community.

Yeah. They provide pleasure without the consequences of having to care for offsprings. The whole point of homosexuality.

Do detect envy?

Yeah heterosexual sex is never about pleasure. That's the ticket.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[sjaak327]

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the Thailand Govt. becomes its official and active promoter. The Govt. will call on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, order public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishe any Govt. employee who expresses disapproval.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the Govt. will expect all Religious folks to betray their beliefs and consciences by condoning, through silence or act.

The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

It's hard enough now raising children by the biological parents nevermind children being raised by gay partners who are not related to them, and how this may affect the children. they will never experience the many nuances of experiences and cultural differences having to do with male and female. There will be no mom and dad balance, do you want to be raised this way or have your family members raised in such a home?

This movement has nothing to do with equality, right to marry etc.. it has to do with making the Govt. and people of Thailand accept their lifestyle.

Just because I don't believe in the Gay movement and their beliefs, it doesn't make me a homophobe, gay basher etc.

If you want to accept this movement fine, just don't try and put it on me, as I'm entitled to my beliefs as well, with the right to protect and promote them.

Don't be a hater... because I'm a Straight Guy.

Religious folks remain completely free in their religious beliefs and principles. The governement just has to prevent that these principles and beliefs stand in the way, or even influence laws that are equally applied to all citizens, regardless of religion. In other words, the separation of politics and religion, which is the corner stone of any modern democracy.

When religious beliefs and principles actively stands in the way of a democratically established law, these religious beliefs are justifiably of lesser importance, and the religious believer is expected to adhere and respect the law. Welcome to the 21st century !

[sjaak327]

Assumptions assumptions........I see now that people are making wild and inaccurate assumptions about homosexuality in nature.

Homosexuality in the wild is not rare and it can well be argued that it actually can be beneficial to a species when males undertake a different set of roles in a community.

Yeah. They provide pleasure without the consequences of having to care for offsprings. The whole point of homosexuality.

Do detect envy?

Yeah heterosexual sex is never about pleasure. That's the ticket.

Exactly, I cannot think of a worse argument.

[notmyself]

Assumptions assumptions........I see now that people are making wild and inaccurate assumptions about homosexuality in nature.

Homosexuality in the wild is not rare and it can well be argued that it actually can be beneficial to a species when males undertake a different set of roles in a community.

Yeah. They provide pleasure without the consequences of having to care for offsprings. The whole point of homosexuality.

Do detect envy?

Yeah heterosexual sex is never about pleasure. That's the ticket.

Exactly, I cannot think of a worse argument.

Big call. I would say the 'will lead to marrying dogs' and 'all gays people are pedophiles' are worse arguments.... both of which have come up at least once.

[Jingthing]

...

Just because I don't believe in the Gay movement and their beliefs, it doesn't make me a homophobe, gay basher etc.

...

Just because I don't believe in the instant oatmeal industry and the people who eat instant oatmeal, it doesn't make me an instant-oatmeal-phobe, quickie oat basher etc.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[ZhouZhou]

as long no one is forced to marry if you wanna live together i am fine if marriage is only for man woman couples.

[Jingthing]

as long no one is forced to marry if you wanna live together i am fine if marriage is only for man woman couples.

What is your nationality? So you are against legal gay marriage? In which country? You don't have to answer of course. Just curious. You write as if not a native English speaker so I am curious where you are coming from. Literally.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[notmyself]

Nah those aren't arguments, they are a load of bullshit that don't warrent any mention.

They are presented as arguments and spread as to be valid arguments so they do need to be mentioned. As such such 'arguments' should be able to stand on their own two feet or be subject to ridicule.

[DP25]

Is there a link to the specifics being discussed? The article in the OP is very vague when it comes to details of any proposed bill, just says that some activists are unhappy but doesn't explain the specific details. From my skim through the thread I didn't notice any more details being posted, just endless bickering.

[Jingthing]

Is there a link to the specifics being discussed? The article in the OP is very vague when it comes to details of any proposed bill, just says that some activists are unhappy but doesn't explain the specific details. From my skim through the thread I didn't notice any more details being posted, just endless bickering.

I agree with you in that we need MORE DETAILS. However, I can tell you the item about the homosexuality test would freak out gay civil rights advocates in ANY country. Also of course any "special" restrictions on rights of gay legally joined couples in regards to their CHILDREN means Thailand's government is NOT interested in anything like full equality with marriage in their proposed gay civil unions. I have a strong feeling NOTHING is going to be passed on this at this time, when push comes to shove, obviously not the real deal equality, and not even this watered down insulting crapola. Thailand remains a VERY BIGOTED country against sexual minorities. They boast they are better than Iran. Yes. Big whoop on that.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[sjaak327]

Nah those aren't arguments, they are a load of bullshit that don't warrent any mention.

They are presented as arguments and spread as to be valid arguments so they do need to be mentioned. As such such 'arguments' should be able to stand on their own two feet or be subject to ridicule.

Fair enough, allthough I guess it is apparent that I consider such kind of arguments as being subject to ridicule as there is no factual evidence whatsoever to support these arguments, which isn't necessarily the case when re-production and same sex marriage is concerned. Not that I find that argument to be especially valid in this discussion.

[notmyself]

Is there a link to the specifics being discussed? The article in the OP is very vague when it comes to details of any proposed bill, just says that some activists are unhappy but doesn't explain the specific details. From my skim through the thread I didn't notice any more details being posted, just endless bickering.

I agree with you in that we need MORE DETAILS. However, I can tell you the item about the homosexuality test would freak out gay civil rights advocates in ANY country. Also of course any "special" restrictions on rights of gay legally joined couples in regards to their CHILDREN means Thailand's government is NOT interested in anything like full equality with marriage in their proposed gay civil unions. I have a strong feeling NOTHING is going to be passed on this at this time, when push comes to shove, obviously not the real deal equality, and not even this watered down bigoted crapola.

One only has to go so far as to think of the outcry there would be with hetro. tests.

[sjaak327]

Is there a link to the specifics being discussed? The article in the OP is very vague when it comes to details of any proposed bill, just says that some activists are unhappy but doesn't explain the specific details. From my skim through the thread I didn't notice any more details being posted, just endless bickering.

I agree with you in that we need MORE DETAILS. However, I can tell you the item about the homosexuality test would freak out gay civil rights advocates in ANY country. Also of course any "special" restrictions on rights of gay legally joined couples in regards to their CHILDREN means Thailand's government is NOT interested in anything like full equality with marriage in their proposed gay civil unions. I have a strong feeling NOTHING is going to be passed on this at this time, when push comes to shove, obviously not the real deal equality, and not even this watered down bigoted crapola. Thailand remains a VERY BIGOTED country against sexual minorities. They boast they are better than Iran. Yes. Big whoop on that.

The thing is, I doubt Thailand as a society is ready for full equality rights for same sex couples. I miss the urgency in any mainstream polictical movement (democrats nor PT). And indeed I miss it in the general polulation as well. The notion that Thailand as a society is tolerant of GLBT rights is a myth, best witnessed when up country. Of course being in a gay relationship in The Netherlands with a Lao national for over 10 years, and having spent quite a bit of time in both Thailand and Laos, makes me realise that when it comes to these matters Thailand and Laos have a long way to go.

Of course my point of reference is indeed my home country, which was the first country worldwide to recognise same sex marriage, 13 years ago, so the bar is high. Luckliy the situation in Thailand IS better when compared to many other countries, but none of the gay, lesbian or trans gender population in Thailand is helped by it being better than some countries, as equality is still years and years away.

[notmyself]

Nah those aren't arguments, they are a load of bullshit that don't warrent any mention.

They are presented as arguments and spread as to be valid arguments so they do need to be mentioned. As such such 'arguments' should be able to stand on their own two feet or be subject to ridicule.

Fair enough, allthough I guess it is apparent that I consider such kind of arguments as being subject to ridicule as there is no factual evidence whatsoever to support these arguments, which isn't necessarily the case when re-production and same sex marriage is concerned. Not that I find that argument to be especially valid in this discussion.

None of the arguments put forward so far can be considered valid in any meaningful sense.

[ZhouZhou]

as long no one is forced to marry if you wanna live together i am fine if marriage is only for man woman couples.

What is your nationality? So you are against legal gay marriage? In which country? You don't have to answer of course. Just curious. You write as if not a native English speaker so I am curious where you are coming from. Literally.

has nothing to do with nationality.

i believe in freedom. in a modern free world, in a free society no one is forced to marry. good thing. live together with what ever gender you want and dress yourself how ever you feel what you are.

in the beginning of the modern area and still today some people look down on people living together that are not married. 2-3 generations ago it was almost impossible to do so. nowadays in a more modern, more urban, new lifestyle society you can.

and if people start to merry each other it should not be because the state give married couples some benefits.

[Jingthing]

as long no one is forced to marry if you wanna live together i am fine if marriage is only for man woman couples.

What is your nationality? So you are against legal gay marriage? In which country? You don't have to answer of course. Just curious. You write as if not a native English speaker so I am curious where you are coming from. Literally.

has nothing to do with nationality.

i believe in freedom. in a modern free world, in a free society no one is forced to marry. good thing. live together with what ever gender you want and dress yourself how ever you feel what you are.

in the beginning of the modern area and still today some people look down on people living together that are not married. 2-3 generations ago it was almost impossible to do so. nowadays in a more modern, more urban, new lifestyle society you can.

and if people start to merry each other it should not be because the state give married couples some benefits.

The topic is about the possibility of civil unions under the LAW in Thailand for sexual minorities. Something not equal to straight marriage for now because Thailand is still BACKWARDS on these issues. NOBODY is talking about forcing anyone to get married! "People" in Thailand are ALREADY getting married. In the millions. "People" also live together without legal contract, people of all kinds. What are you suggesting? If you are so "for freedom" why would you not be for the same freedom (to marry or not marry) for ALL citizens? If you are just against gay civil rights to form legalized relationships, marriage or civil unions, it might help if you clearly just SAY THAT. If so, how can you justify denying the exact same rights to an entire class of citizens? That is blatantly unfair discrimination.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Jingthing

[ZhouZhou]

as long no one is forced to marry if you wanna live together i am fine if marriage is only for man woman couples.

What is your nationality? So you are against legal gay marriage? In which country? You don't have to answer of course. Just curious. You write as if not a native English speaker so I am curious where you are coming from. Literally.

has nothing to do with nationality.

i believe in freedom. in a modern free world, in a free society no one is forced to marry. good thing. live together with what ever gender you want and dress yourself how ever you feel what you are.

in the beginning of the modern area and still today some people look down on people living together that are not married. 2-3 generations ago it was almost impossible to do so. nowadays in a more modern, more urban, new lifestyle society you can.

and if people start to merry each other it should not be because the state give married couples some benefits.

The topic is about the possibility of civil unions under the LAW in Thailand for sexual minorities. Something not equal to straight marriage for now because Thailand is still BACKWARDS on these issues. NOBODY is talking about forcing anyone to get married! "People" in Thailand are ALREADY getting married. In the millions. "People" also live together without legal contract, people of all kinds. What are you suggesting? If you are so "for freedom" why would you not be for the same freedom (to marry or not marry) for ALL citizens? If you are just against gay civil rights to form legalized relationships, marriage or civil unions, it might help if you clearly just SAY THAT. If so, how can you justify denying the exact same rights to an entire class of citizens? That is blatantly unfair discrimination.

whatever relationship people form it should be not illegal.

but okay you want a law to legalize your choice of relationship.

a law for civil unions should be gender neutral, open for everyone and every combination and not a special same-sex civil union law.

[Ticketmaster]

What tolerance? Thais who have changed their sex through surgery STILL can't get the sex changed on their ID card. Thai tolerance is WAY OVERRATED by foreigners.

One's gender is determined by genetic identification, not choice. If a person has a Y chromosome, the ID should identify that person as male.

It seems that when somebody wants something that is not justified, they always resort to illogic and fallacy. I have been following this thread, but it has gotten entirely too irrational and filled with logical fallacies. I'm outta here! Good luck with your tolerance and child acquisition. Maybe gays should be allowed to adopt gay children. Now there's a fit.

[wilcopops]

Assumptions assumptions........I see now that people are making wild and inaccurate assumptions about homosexuality in nature.

Homosexuality in the wild is not rare and it can well be argued that it actually can be beneficial to a species when males undertake a different set of roles in a community.

Yeah. They provide pleasure without the consequences of having to care for offsprings. The whole point of homosexuality.

"The whole point of homosexuality." - ?? I think you need to review your knowledge or perception of homosexuality....it isn't a hobby you know.

[wilcopops]

What tolerance? Thais who have changed their sex through surgery STILL can't get the sex changed on their ID card. Thai tolerance is WAY OVERRATED by foreigners.

One's gender is determined by genetic identification, not choice. If a person has a Y chromosome, the ID should identify that person as male.

It seems that when somebody wants something that is not justified, they always resort to illogic and fallacy. I have been following this thread, but it has gotten entirely too irrational and filled with logical fallacies. I'm outta here! Good luck with your tolerance and child acquisition. Maybe gays should be allowed to adopt gay children. Now there's a fit.

What tolerance? Thais who have changed their sex through surgery STILL can't get the sex changed on their ID card. Thai tolerance is WAY OVERRATED by foreigners.

One's gender is determined by genetic identification, not choice. If a person has a Y chromosome, the ID should identify that person as male.

It seems that when somebody wants something that is not justified, they always resort to illogic and fallacy. I have been following this thread, but it has gotten entirely too irrational and filled with logical fallacies. I'm outta here! Good luck with your tolerance and child acquisition. Maybe gays should be allowed to adopt gay children. Now there's a fit.

A sophism no less?

[wilcopops]

"as long no one is forced to marry if you wanna live together i am fine if marriage is only for man woman couples." - can anyone explain this comment???????

[Yunla]

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

As a general overview, Buddhism teaches that the path to divinity lies within the individual, heaven lies in your soul from birth and it is your actions in life that determine if you can walk that inner path to the Buddha. Externally, love towards all people, charity, hard work, kindness, self-discipline, these are the real-world actions that will guide you on your internal path to divinity. The key point is that this religion is about the individual, pursuing an inner path, and as such the State and 'religious leaders' have no actual power over that person's ascension.

Obviously, transgenderism, heterosexuality, and homosexuality are compatible with all of the above.

It should also be noted that just like in other major religions, the original teachings of the deity/prophet were hijacked by priests over the centuries, to exert control over their local communities, play out their own bigoted ideals, and enforce exploitative laws that were untirely unrelated to the original religious gnosis intended by the divine prophet. The same is true of Buddhism, the original gnosis of unconditional love and individual spiritual enlightenment became a tribal control-mechanism, removed from the individual, and more recently a money-spinner with job-for-life status for the preachers. This seems to mirror the decay seen in many other faiths down the centuries, it gradually molds itself around the increasingly commercial and ignorant mainstream cultures.

On the marriage-for-all issue, of course this is a non-topic. You are born with 100% freedom as your birth-right. State laws should only prevent you from infringing on the freedom of others, be that harassment or violence or theft etc. The State has no actual right to control any of your natural-born freedoms, but the State should always have powers that curtail your freedom to affect other peoples' lives negatively.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Yunla

[draftvader]

This is a VERY sensitive topic and I would like to thank the moderators for their sterling work in allowing people to continue the discussion. It is just a shame we can't have a "sin-bin" where we can read the posts they delete. I think that the moderators are being too kind by deleting these posts and allowing these posters a 2nd chance that they really don't deserve. I for one would like to know exactly who to block on ThaiVisa and such a sin-bin would give me a really simple blacklist to start with.

Sure, be for or against, but please have a decent argument (which in my mind would automatically preclude one side of the debate)!

[sbk]

Flames removed, It is possible to disagree with someone's viewpoint without resorting to insults.

[Jingthing]

whatever relationship people form it should be not illegal.

but okay you want a law to legalize your choice of relationship.

a law for civil unions should be gender neutral, open for everyone and every combination and not a special same-sex civil union law.

Actually I (and most gay civil rights advocates internationally) want LEGAL MARRIAGE EQUALITY in all nations under civil laws. Religions are free to do what they like. Outside of theocracies generally marriages through civil laws are done. No segregation, no separate but never equal option designed for demonized sexual minorities.

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. So in the context of Thailand, perhaps that means you are against the homosexuality tests part of it because obviously it would be totally illogical to favor an alternative legalized relationship structure for all that has a homosexuality test. That is, if I actually understand what you actually mean. Which is REALLY hard. Just saying.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Jingthing

[wilcopops]

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