Same Sex Bill: Homosexuality Test!

[isanbirder]

There's a long and turgid thread in Thailand News about the proposals for a Same Sex Civil Union Bill in Thailand. The link is

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/635761-same-sex-union-bill-no-cause-for-celebration/

Apart from the usual gay posters, you can read posts by normal, decent, tolerant human beings... and other posts by Neanderthal homophobes.

The bill (which nobody seems to have seen) is said to require a "homosexuality test". The mind boggles!

But what happens with same-sex couples whose relationship does NOT have a sexual element? Less common nowadays than it used to be, but I've known them, particularly among women. Why shouldn't they also contract a civil union in order to get the various rights which it would give, such as access to the partner in a hospital etc.?

I know their problem is not directly our concern as gays, but its very existence makes a mockery of the supposed "homosexuality test"!

[retell]

good point

[neek]

If the 'homosexuality test' is anything like the driving test, there's nothing to worry about. You may not even have to turn up.

When I got married I had to provide evidence that we were living together as a couple. Perhaps this is all that's really required.. photographs of the two of you, demonstrably of the same sex and living together. I see no need for some of the scaremongering that's going on.

The other issues about rights and being told to be grateful and stop being greedy are certainly cause for concern. Of course the same people if born into countries such as Afghanistan or Iran would have a harder time of it, but one should not aim to be "just" better than other countries, one should aim for justice and equality.

-- edit -- I just realised that being asked to prove that a same sex couple are living together in the same way that my wife and I did ought to be enough. This issue of granting same sex couples the same rights, but under specific legislation that specifies that they are a same sex couple, is not yet equality. True equality would be when they simply have to prove that they live together and can get married, with no mention or regard to either of their sex.

Edited April 30, 2013 by neek

[lee b]

this is real right ?? emm

[Locationthailand]

Another joke perhaps?

[KED]

My bf of 10 years and I are not exhibitionists -but if the Thai government needs to verify our same-sex relationship - they are welcome to observe one of our intimate sessions.

[LeCharivari]

The whole article is a bit odd in that as far as I can see nothing it says is reported anywhere else, in either English or Thai. Comparisons to Iran and Afghanistan? A "homosexuality test"?

It just doesn't seem to ring true, somehow.

As the bill was sponsored by a Democrat (Wirath Kalayasiri) I think there may be more than a little bit of "playing politics" going on.

Edited April 30, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

...

When I got married I had to provide evidence that we were living together as a couple. Perhaps this is all that's really required.. photographs of the two of you, demonstrably of the same sex and living together. I see no need for some of the scaremongering that's going on.

,,,

Excuse me, but I reckon you are talking about marriage extensions at IMMIGRATION. Right?

If so, that is not the same thing at all.

I simply cannot believe you needed to prove that you live together to actually just get married. That is totally absurd.

If heterosexuals do not need to pass a heterosexual test (whatever the heck that is ) to get married, it is beyond unjust for homosexuals to be required to pass a homosexual test to enter a Grade D crappy totally non-equal to marriage legal institution that isn't even marriage. Thai gay activists should be fighting mad now. I think reject this homophobic bill entirely. It is not better than nothing. I smell a setup. I now do not even believe PTP was ever interested in doing anything about this issue. Thai gays are being used as political pawns. They are demonized and constantly mocked in Thai society and now when they protest that this proposed bill is insultingly unequal, they can be demonized further as not being "Thai" enough to passively accept their low place in Thai society, and to be grateful for this horrible treatment and gracious offer of a disgustingly insulting bill.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

So you've seen this "disgustingly insulting bill", JT?

Maybe it would be a bit more pragmatic to see what it says before passing judgement and dismissing it so soundly.

... and it isn't a Pheu Thai bill - it was sponsored by the Democrats.

[Jingthing]

We've been discussing the development of this bill for months now here. I recall it started with PTP. Please show me the link about democrat sponsorship. It doesn't make any difference to me which major party, or both, is behind this situation, but I would like to see it clarified. No I have not read the bill. But all I have to hear is homosexuality test and no rights granted regarding the CHILDREN of sexual minorities and that doesn't pass the smell test. It wouldn't to anyone who cares about civil rights for sexual minorities in Thailand. I seriously think Thai gay rights advocates would be better off in the LONG RUN saying FORGET IT to an institutionalization of their diminished social status with such a bill as this SOUNDS like.

Sure it might be worth a try to attempt to negotiate away the insulting parts of the bill. But I don't see any reason to be optimistic. Thailand isn't there yet and it is no surprise that their legislature isn't there yet either.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

So you've seen this "disgustingly insulting bill", JT?

Maybe it would be a bit more pragmatic to see what it says before passing judgement and dismissing it so soundly.

... and it isn't a Pheu Thai bill - it was sponsored by the Democrats.

Like you, LeC, I would like to see what the bill says before damning it.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Surely half a loaf is better than no loaf at all (as the character played by Peter Finch in the film about bi-sexuality Sunday Bloody Sunday remarks at the end of the film)? Let's worry about "negotiating away the bits we don't like" once we've actually got something. Babies and bath water is another phrase that comes to mind.

[Jingthing]

Surely half a loaf is better than no loaf at all (as the character played by Peter Finch in the film about bi-sexuality Sunday Bloody Sunday remarks at the end of the film)? Let's worry about "negotiating away the bits we don't like" once we've actually got something. Babies and bath water is another phrase that comes to mind.

Not always true. My point is that if people en masse accept and concept to an institution that denies them any rights over their children or potential children, they are actually doing themselves a disservice. Of course we would like to hear more specific details about this bill. I or anyone else can only comment on what information that we are aware of at this time. If the horrible things about this bill turn out to be untrue, namely the children's rights aspect and the homosexuality test aspect, then of course any opinions rendered may be adjusted AT THAT TIME.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Concept in the above post s/b CONSENT

[neek]

Excuse me, but I reckon you are talking about marriage extensions at IMMIGRATION. Right?

If so, that is not the same thing at all.

No, I was talking about getting married. I may, however, have got my facts mixed up, as I just checked the documentation requirements for marriage, and photographs or other evidence of the relationship don't seem to be required.

I apologise for being misleading and thank you for the correction, I honestly recall that we had to show that we were actually together, as a measure to help prevent fake marriages or marriages of convenience. I've extended my Non-"O" "Thai Wife" visa 6 times since then so I've got that procedure stuck in my head.

SaintLouisBlues - If you accept half a loaf today instead of a whole loaf, you may find yourself being offered quarter of a loaf the next day, and everyone will mock you for being a "half-loafer" Your comments sounds rather like the one referred to earlier - be glad you're not in Afghanistan or Iran .. things could be much worse for you .. so accept this unhappy situation. That's no way to pave the way to happiness.

I should probably watch Sunday Bloody Sunday though.. haven't seen it, don't know the context of the quote. Sounds like people already downtrodden, accepting an unhappy situation because they feel powerless to change it.

[Jingthing]

You're a foreigner, right? The main issue is about THAIS in this bill. No mention yet whether Thais will still be able to same sex civil union to Thais, as was reported before.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Politics is the art of achieving practical objectives not retaining ideological purity, Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Politics is the art of achieving practical objectives not retaining ideological purity, Jingthing

This bill as written (as far as we can tell so far) is the wrong direction for Thai's seeking sexual minority civil rights. That's my point. Think about this for a second or two. If you're a single mother with parental rights over a child, you would be INSANE to enter a Thai civil partnership where you have NO parental rights due to your now officialized homosexual status, which you were forced to establish through a test. Yes I want more details but just these two things, the parental rights issue and the homosexual test are totally appalling.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Far too much speculation and far too little knowledge. I purposely limited this thread to the so-called homosexuality test because this did seem to be a topic we could usefully comment on.

Quite apart from the fact that there is no obligation in a civil union or indeed in a non-religious marriage to have sexual relations with the partner, and therefore the partners do not have to be gay or lesbian, can anybody suggest how homosexuality could be 'tested'? I cannot think of a way which is even possibly acceptable in a country which considers itself relatively civilised (I am not being judgmental here, just trying to distinguish Thailand from, for example, Uganda or Iran under the present regime).

[Jingthing]

Whoever came up with this homosexual test idea is obviously a homophobe. I think most of us know very well about the stereotypes that homophobes have about gay people. The way this bill has developed has revealed the true and dark colors about what many of us already knew about mainstream Thai attitudes towards sexual minorities. This isn't a favor. It's a curse.

You criticize others for making assumptions with the limited info we have, and then you make a whopper yourself. You have no idea about the lack of requirement for sexual relations in this proposed totally homophobic Thai civil union bill.

My feeling is that Thai civil rights advocates should draw a line on this one. NO homosexual test. Period. If the powers that be won't buy it, wait for another day, year, or decade. The very concept of homosexual test is totally homophobic. Where is the heterosexual test? Duh. There isn't one. Nothing is better at this time than consenting or rationalizing a supposed benefit to this homophobic bill.

Will the homophobes "understand" why Thai civil rights advocates are not grateful for this offer of a favor? No, they never will. But why cater to them? Thais might be in the same situation as Americans were. Changing attitudes of YOUNGER PEOPLE over time will make the difference. Thailand may be 30 years from where New Zealand is at now.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

I can see little point in fueling what is currently PURE SPECULATION about what may or may not be in the bill, based on one solitary report in an English language newspaper which is well known for its political views, which has not been reported in a similar way in any Thai language article.

Nothing remotely like this was reported when the bill was given three public airings over two months ago, which at least indicates that it is incorrect ... and not satisfied with the assumption of guilt until proven innocent, now JT is suggesting that on top of the supposed "homosexuality test" there could be another requiring you to prove that you are having sexual relations!

Why not add some more unfounded speculation that there may be an age limit? Or a limit on an age gap? Or on those who are overweight?

Edited May 1, 2013 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

Excuse me, but I reckon you are talking about marriage extensions at IMMIGRATION. Right?

If so, that is not the same thing at all.

No, I was talking about getting married. I may, however, have got my facts mixed up, as I just checked the documentation requirements for marriage, and photographs or other evidence of the relationship don't seem to be required.

I apologise for being misleading and thank you for the correction, I honestly recall that we had to show that we were actually together, as a measure to help prevent fake marriages or marriages of convenience. I've extended my Non-"O" "Thai Wife" visa 6 times since then so I've got that procedure stuck in my head.

SaintLouisBlues - If you accept half a loaf today instead of a whole loaf, you may find yourself being offered quarter of a loaf the next day, and everyone will mock you for being a "half-loafer" Your comments sounds rather like the one referred to earlier - be glad you're not in Afghanistan or Iran .. things could be much worse for you .. so accept this unhappy situation. That's no way to pave the way to happiness.

I should probably watch Sunday Bloody Sunday though.. haven't seen it, don't know the context of the quote. Sounds like people already downtrodden, accepting an unhappy situation because they feel powerless to change it.

IF I've got half a loaf today and get another quarter tomorrow that's three quarters of a loaf and a heck of a lot better than none at all - and the chances of my getting that final quarter are looking pretty good!

IF, as has been suggested, Thailand is 30 years from where New Zealand is at now, that bit if a loaf would bring us a lot closer

[LeCharivari]

Just re-read the article and the author is clearly being "selective with the truth" at best and has their own agenda.

A prime example is the idea 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 but that 22 countries have civil partnerships which some (such as France and the UK) are currently changing to "gay" marriage.

This report would appear to be suspect at best.

Edited May 1, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

I can see little point in fueling what is currently PURE SPECULATION about what may or may not be in the bill, based on one solitary report in an English language newspaper which is well known for its political views, which has not been reported in a similar way in any Thai language article.

Nothing remotely like this was reported when the bill was given three public airings over two months ago, which at least indicates that it is incorrect ... and not satisfied with the assumption of guilt until proven innocent, now JT is suggesting that on top of the supposed "homosexuality test" there could be another requiring you to prove that you are having sexual relations!

Why not add some more unfounded speculation that there may be an age limit? Or a limit on an age gap? Or on those who are overweight?

1. This thread is based on an assumption that there is some kind of truth to the newspaper report about a homosexual test. If that topic offends, why even post on the thread at all?

2. I asked you before to document your assertion that this bill is sponsored by the democrats. You said I was wrong to mention PTP which was indeed mentioned before this as behind this bill. I STILL would like to know. Do you actually know? If so, again I am asking for your reference. No need to respond to any request but I found it odd with all the heat of your responses that you never followed up about that.

3. You completely distorted what I said about a sexual test. I never said that it is known there is any kind of sexual test.

4. You trash the source about the homosexual test. Do you think they just MADE UP that part? Do you think just because you haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere you have even begun to prove it is not real? Have you considered much of the press in Thailand is TONE DEAF to any voiced concerns of sexual minority activists? I don't know if that's the reason of course. If you please, can you provide some links to some Thai sources with news on this, which you seem to suggest you have read. We can google translate and see what they say, for whatever that's worth.

5. Your last point (age limit and all that SILLINESS) is completely irrational and has NOTHING to do with this topic. Not worthy of any response.

We are all responding to incomplete information. I have ALREADY covered how if it turns out these reports about homosexual tests (and lack of parental rights) are not real, I will simply adjust my opinion based on new information. What is wrong with that? The other option is to not discuss this at all because we don't know enough. That's fine if that's your choice. But my choice was TO discuss it.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Excuse me, but I reckon you are talking about marriage extensions at IMMIGRATION. Right?

If so, that is not the same thing at all.

No, I was talking about getting married. I may, however, have got my facts mixed up, as I just checked the documentation requirements for marriage, and photographs or other evidence of the relationship don't seem to be required.

I apologise for being misleading and thank you for the correction, I honestly recall that we had to show that we were actually together, as a measure to help prevent fake marriages or marriages of convenience. I've extended my Non-"O" "Thai Wife" visa 6 times since then so I've got that procedure stuck in my head.

SaintLouisBlues - If you accept half a loaf today instead of a whole loaf, you may find yourself being offered quarter of a loaf the next day, and everyone will mock you for being a "half-loafer" Your comments sounds rather like the one referred to earlier - be glad you're not in Afghanistan or Iran .. things could be much worse for you .. so accept this unhappy situation. That's no way to pave the way to happiness.

I should probably watch Sunday Bloody Sunday though.. haven't seen it, don't know the context of the quote. Sounds like people already downtrodden, accepting an unhappy situation because they feel powerless to change it.

IF I've got half a loaf today and get another quarter tomorrow that's three quarters of a loaf and a heck of a lot better than none at all - and the chances of my getting that final quarter are looking pretty good!

IF, as has been suggested, Thailand is 30 years from where New Zealand is at now, that bit if a loaf would bring us a lot closer

I contend based on the limited information we have so far, that "bit" of a loaf may be POISONED. This might be a Stonewall Moment for Thai gay activists. Toss the poison loaf back in their face. Accepting this poison loaf with grace may be a huge political mistake in the long run. Better no loaf than a portion of a poison loaf.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

1,You have made an assumption of truth,but that does not prevent others (including the OP!) from doubting it. The "topic" doesn't "offend" - just your assumption that it is true, which coincidentally matches your own view.

2, I don't waste my time giving links to those who have accused me of "cherry picking" them. I have named the MP sponsoring the bill so you can easily do a search yourself to confirm or disprove this.

3. I did not say or even suggest you had said it was "known" there was a sexual test. I said you were "suggesting" it "could" be a requirement.

4. Yes, I think there is at least a possibility they have made it up or more probably deliberately mis-represented it, as they clearly have done the supposed "international good practices". Given the near impossibility of disproving a negative and that the bill is not yet finalised or published all that can be done is compare sources (or in this case the one source that publishes misinformation in the same article).

5. Agreed. An age limit is quite silly, as is the idea that couples would have to show they were having sexual relations - but you didn't rule that out!

What is wrong with your opinion and your posts?

The omission of one crucial word at the beginning of each post: IF

Edited May 1, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

I think it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Nation simply "made up" the information about homosexual tests. I do think there is always the possibility of a lost in translation situation. Yes, most of us do welcome more information and more clarification. If anyone is charitable enough to offer any such SOURCES, please share them. Cheers.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Gay civil partnerships are about (at most) 5% of the population - a minority of gays will ever want such a thing, so I would be inclined to say 2% of the entire population. Within such partnerships a tiny minority will want children. As a gay male myself I feel completely liberated from the notion that children should play any part in my life. So you're focussing on - and let's be wildly generous here - 10% of the minority of 5% of the population who will be gay people in civil partnerships who want children (10% of 2% is my guess!!!). Frankly I don't give a damn about them at all.

By way of backing up my statistics, in the recent Australian census there was a total of 36,000 households that identified they were living in a gay relationship. That's 72,000 gay people out of an adult gay population of roughly 720,000 people (I take the standard one-in-twenty statistic of those who identify as being gay and I'm taking the adult population of Australian as being roughly two-thirds of the total population). There is zero evidence that the entire 36,000 have entered into civil partnerships (let alone the nonsense that is "gay marriage") or that they have children!

Edited May 2, 2013 by SaintLouisBlues

[Jingthing]

So you only care about yourself?

Lesbian couples have a higher rate of having children than gay male couples.

If it is so "rare" for same sex couples to have children, then it shouldn't be a big problem for state's to let them have parental rights, now should it?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[SaintLouisBlues]

I care about the majority of gay people who don't have children and have no desire to have children. To return to my original thesis, half a loaf in this case is infinitely better than no loaf at all.