Yes or no? Ireland decides whether to legalize gay marriage

[thaibeachlovers]

  On 5/28/2015 at 2:26 PM, Berkshire said:

  On 5/28/2015 at 1:47 PM, boomerangutang said:

  On 5/28/2015 at 1:17 PM, MaeJoMTB said:

  On 5/28/2015 at 2:19 AM, boomerangutang said:

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

You can't change your sex, it's decided at a genetic level.

Superficial cosmetic surgery doesn't change anyones sex, only their outward appearance.

You are either male of female, heterosexual = male + female, once you legalize homosexual marriage all possible combinations are covered.

Genetic anomalies are so rare as to be not worth considering in this discussion, and are only used (by you) to deflect the discussion.

The only reasonable choice, in these modern times, is to let any two consenting adults marry.

Job done.

I was referring to what is indicated on a person's ID - which is an issue which relates to the OP. In order for there to be categorizations (of sexual orientation, whatever) certain things have to be established/defined. Perhaps I'm off on a tangent here, but Thailand already implemented a provision for a person to specify "other" (or katoy or neuter or whatever) on an individual's ID. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a similar provision. What I'm proposing, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, is each person's ID state either male or female. Once officialdom starts trying to be achingly PC, then it becomes a mish-mash of many categories for 'sex' of an individual.

Outside of the ID topic, one can then go on to clarifying a person's sexual orientation - though that too can vary - among many niches. Plus, people are mutable. They may be gay for awhile, and then change to be bi-sexual, and then get a sex-change and be seemingly straight, and then......

That brings me back to my initial premise: marriage should be between a man and a woman (predicated on their sex at birth). Alternatively, a 'civil union' (with legal ramifications) can be between any two consenting adults - can even be multiple partners, for all I care, though I might draw the line at animals. ....like the Thai woman who took a cow to bed and claimed she was married to it.

You're still bringing up civil unions? That boat has sailed. It's not coming back. The conclusion is that civil unions (aka "separate but equal") does not work. It never has and never will. Time has changed, Sir, and the world has moved on.

Why? Because you said so?

Well, they got that stupid and useless institution of marriage, they can go suck on it now. The scum divorce lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a whole new crop of suckers to fleece.

[Jingthing]

  On 5/29/2015 at 8:25 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

  On 5/28/2015 at 1:17 PM, MaeJoMTB said:

  On 5/28/2015 at 2:19 AM, boomerangutang said:

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

You can't change your sex, it's decided at a genetic level.

Superficial cosmetic surgery doesn't change anyones sex, only their outward appearance.

You are either male of female, heterosexual = male + female, once you legalize homosexual marriage all possible combinations are covered.

Genetic anomalies are so rare as to be not worth considering in this discussion, and are only used (by you) to deflect the discussion.

The only reasonable choice, in these modern times, is to let any two consenting adults marry.

Job done.

So, if two homosexuals can get married, why can't we have legal bigamy/ multiple marriage. In this brave new world of anything goes who has the right to say I can't be married to 2, 3, 10 other people of whatever gender- certainly not homosexuals.

The debate is over in Ireland.

The topic is about Ireland.

The fear mongering point you bring up is the same old tired BS, a polite version of it; more open bigots suggest if gays can marry then people will want to marry their goats. Not fooling anybody about the anti-gay agenda in such empty arguments.

[Jingthing]

  On 5/29/2015 at 8:30 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Why? Because you said so?

Well, they got that stupid and useless institution of marriage, they can go suck on it now. The scum divorce lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a whole new crop of suckers to fleece.

The debate is over in Ireland.

Once a nation grants marriage equality, they won't go backwards.

Civil unions is still a live issue and/or alternative to marriage equality in some countries that don't have either marriage equality or same sex civil unions.

Thailand is such a country, but the topic here is not Thailand.

(Edits made to allow reply.)

[Goldieinkathu]

  On 5/27/2015 at 8:59 AM, evadgib said:

  On 5/27/2015 at 8:49 AM, Jingthing said:

  On 5/27/2015 at 8:44 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

  On 5/27/2015 at 3:57 AM, Jingthing said:

Yeah nice try no cigar trying to scapegoat gays for high divorce rates. If anything gay marriage is strengthening the institution of marriage by working so hard to be included in it it shows regard for its importance and value.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Actually I wonder about the intelligence of the homosexual community fighting so hard to be able to enter that failed institution of marriage, the biggest con on men in the western world. Women were really smart to make it so.

Like someone inferred before, it'll be interesting to see who gets the goodies when homosexuals start to get divorced- coin toss perhaps!

I wonder about your intelligence.

In any case, that's neither here nor there.

Marriage is not REQUIRED of anyone.

Gays and lesbians just want the same legal options as their fellow citizens.

Marriage will be especially important for couples that have children or want children. This might be more common among lesbians as they've got that womb thing going on.

The stats from generations to come will be interesting re the increase in numbers of children batting for the wrong side in adulthood as a result of growing up with same sex parents. To put it another way I'd be most surprised if the numbers went down.

I grew up with heterosexual parents, why am I not straight? I can't think of one gay person I know who's parents were gay.

The numbers of gay people have nothing to do with same sex marriage.

[evadgib]

The reasoning behind the paragraph stands whether anyone including me likes it or not. While i'm at it i'm frankly dismayed at the hetrophobia displayed of late by those who constantly claim and would have everyone believe it's the other way around.

[Jingthing]

  On 5/29/2015 at 10:37 AM, evadgib said:

The reasoning behind the paragraph stands whether anyone including me likes it or not. While i'm at it i'm frankly dismayed at the hetrophobia displayed of late by those who constantly claim and would have everyone believe it's the other way around.

Heterophobia? That's total BS. Name one law in any country that is discriminatory towards straights.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[evadgib]

A recent entry in the 'brigades' thread explains.

[boomerangutang]

  On 5/28/2015 at 2:26 PM, Berkshire said:

You're still bringing up civil unions? That boat has sailed. It's not coming back. The conclusion is that civil unions (aka "separate but equal") does not work. It never has and never will. Time has changed, Sir, and the world has moved on.

You could say "the world has moved on" from ocean liners, Elvis, Indian motorbikes, dial telephones, neighborly conversations over the hedge, fresh air, clean water, .....but some older concepts may still have validity.

[thaibeachlovers]

  On 5/31/2015 at 2:47 AM, boomerangutang said:

  On 5/28/2015 at 2:26 PM, Berkshire said:

You're still bringing up civil unions? That boat has sailed. It's not coming back. The conclusion is that civil unions (aka "separate but equal") does not work. It never has and never will. Time has changed, Sir, and the world has moved on.

You could say "the world has moved on" from ocean liners, Elvis, Indian motorbikes, dial telephones, neighborly conversations over the hedge, fresh air, clean water, .....but some older concepts may still have validity.

Those Indian m'bikes were great. Of course they'd have to change the name if still making them as too un PC now.

Elvis was the greatest. There is none among the present crop of non entities that come close to him.