News Forum - Two decade-long battle for same-sex marriage in Thailand

[Thaiger]

“So when you see all colours of the Thai rainbow in extravagant display in social media, remember that the rainbow in Thailand currently has no pot of gold at the other end.” The Thai government continues to disenfranchise one group of Thai society as conservative elements of the Thai government resist changes to Thaland’s marriage laws. Up to 10% of Thailand’s broad community are considered to fall under the LGBT+ banners (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender). Whilst Thailand is seen from the outside as a broad and diverse population, accepting of its LGBT community, there remains fierce aversion by older sections […]

The story Two decade-long battle for same-sex marriage in Thailand as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Ramanathan.P]

Thailand's ageing population is increasing and birthrate is decreasing. As such the future generations need more human capital to replace the ageing population. At one point Thai people are encouraged to produce more children. At another point they are provided with free contraceptives to control birthrates. Now with this latest development, there could be more challenges to future generations....

[HolyCowCm]

Surprise surprise = not! When they finally give them equal rights to marry then they should give the foreing men the same equal rights in marriage to a Thai woman as the same a foreign female married to a Thai man has. I don;t thinkj either will happen for a long time and maybe never the foreing man will get rights the same as a foreing married woman. 

On another note based to the article, 10% seems like a heck of a lot. 65,000,000 people = 6,500,000 non heterosexual people. Wow! Doesn't suprise me as from how many lesbians there seem to be alone in CM. Both my daughters also have 2-3 very good gay friends here from school ans I like all of them as nice kids. I wonder if Thailand leads the world in the most type of these type of people per population. And no, I am not biased, phobic or a hater, but just making a statement.

[riclag]

Centuries vs a couple of Decades of humanity stuffing aside laws of what  liberals consider natural ! There is a reason why for centuries this morality has struggled !

Imop 

I have to side on time for these confused individuals and their supporters! 

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, HolyCowCm said:

they should give the foreing men the same equal rights in marriage to a Thai woman as the same a foreign female married to a Thai man has

This is interesting @HolyCowCm  I didn’t know there was a difference. Not something I’ve ever looked in to. What kind of difference are we talking about? 

[HolyCowCm]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

This is interesting @HolyCowCm  I didn’t know there was a difference. Not something I’ve ever looked in to. What kind of difference are we talking about? 

Super easy clear path to citizenship. Huge difference.

[Soidog]

29 minutes ago, HolyCowCm said:

Super easy clear path to citizenship. Huge difference.

Oh really. I wasn’t aware of that at all. How the hell do they justify that overt sexism ? 

[oldschooler]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/21/number-people-uk-identifying-heterosexual-falls-again-ons
 

UK non- hetero =7% = normal deviation ; which proportion I believe has been constant throughout human history everywhere and wouldn’t I think be widely different anywhere so no where near 10%. 

Marriage for me is for a heterosexual man & woman to conceive, produce & raise their own blood children within a legal protective framework for wife & kids = Natural Family = Strong Society. Needs removal from Religion.

Any Other Legal Intimate Bond  = Civil Partnership = Abnormal Society= Get the hell away from me. Even normal marriage without kids seems weird. 

Freely admit I probably haven’t thought this all the way through. Gay People “ marrying” and adopting kids though makes me sick. As do “ Ladyboys”. Can’t help it. Let them live in their unnatural peace ; just don’t want them around me or my family. 

[Shade_Wilder]

44 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/21/number-people-uk-identifying-heterosexual-falls-again-ons
 

UK non- hetero =7% = normal deviation ; which proportion I believe has been constant throughout human history everywhere and wouldn’t I think be widely different anywhere so no where near 10%. 

Marriage for me is for a heterosexual man & woman to conceive, produce & raise their own blood children within a legal protective framework for wife & kids = Natural Family = Strong Society. Needs removal from Religion.

Any Other Legal Intimate Bond  = Civil Partnership = Abnormal Society= Get the hell away from me. Even normal marriage without kids seems weird. 

Freely admit I probably haven’t thought this all the way through. Gay People “ marrying” and adopting kids though makes me sick. As do “ Ladyboys”. Can’t help it. Let them live in their unnatural peace ; just don’t want them around me or my family. 

Wow.

If ever there was a case of '..Thou Dost Protest Too Much!'.

Perhaps you should see a therapist and explore your latent homosexual feelings; it might clear up your inner conflicts and anguish.

Good Luck!

[HolyCowCm]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

Oh really. I wasn’t aware of that at all. How the hell do they justify that overt sexism ? 

Just the way it is. The respondisbility is looked at from the Thai man's side. He doesn't have to make a lot of baht per month at all and the foreing woman doesn't have the things a male foreinger will have to do such national anthem singing or maybe even speaking Thai etc. So much easier for the foreing woman and a lot faster and seems is not part of the normal yearly 100 person per country. It is its own category.

[oldschooler]

13 minutes ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Wow.

If ever there was a case of '..Thou Dost Protest Too Much!'.

Perhaps you should see a therapist and explore your latent homosexual feelings; it might clear up your inner conflicts and anguish.

Good Luck!

Don’t feel conflicted. Just articulating what I believe vast majority feel but unable to say openly. No protest just open & honest natural feelings.
 

Paradox though because as fellow humans I would not discriminate if I could prevent harm to them (I would) and would expect same from them. 

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, HolyCowCm said:

Just the way it is. The respondisbility is looked at from the Thai man's side. He doesn't have to make a lot of baht per month at all and the foreing woman doesn't have the things a male foreinger will have to do such national anthem singing or maybe even speaking Thai etc. So much easier for the foreing woman and a lot faster and seems is not part of the normal yearly 100 person per country. It is its own category.

Thanks. I wasn’t aware of that at all. I’ll take a look at it sometime.

[Shade_Wilder]

9 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Don’t feel conflicted. Just articulating what I believe vast majority feel but unable to say openly. No protest just open & honest natural feelings.
 

Paradox though because as fellow humans I would not discriminate if I could prevent harm to them (I would) and would expect same from them. 

Respectfully Mr Schooler, I don't think that your post(s)/position(s) are entirely rational.

First, the numbers. Whether there are 10% gay people about (the generally accepted number) or7% (your number) simply doesn't matter; there are gay people about and it is a virtual certainty that you know some of them, although unwittingly.

Second, do the "vast majority" feel the same as you? That may have been true 50 years ago, but it flies in the face of things today; the evidence is all the gay-friendly laws that have been passed in the last decade or two. If the "vast majority" were against them, politicians wouldn't have passed them and courts wouldn't have upheld them. Moreover, it is a generational thing; the younger a person is, the more accepting they are. Us older folk are going the way of the dinosaurs.

Third, I find that those who are okay with gay rights get there in roughly two ways. First, the intellectual arguments in favour of non-discrimination are effective. Second, people get affected personally and that changes their views.

In my case, I took a gap year after high school many (MANY!) years ago and moved town to share a flat with a platonic female pal of mine. The first or second night there, she sat me down and told me that she was Bi, and then filled me in on the sex lives of all the people that I had known in high school; to say it was a shock would be a wild understatement. What to do? She was my friend, so I couldn't hate her for being Bi, so instead we made a habit of going 'girl-watching' together and had a great time. We still do it to this day.

This (para above) will almost certainly happen to you, sooner or later, as judging people by their sex life isn't rational. Do you currently enter a cocktail party, stand at the doorway, and say to your wife things like "That's Angela. We used to be friends, but since she got married, she doesn't do oral anymore, so I don't talk to her" or "That's Tom; he prefers it in the afternoon, so we won't be speaking to him." or "That woman, Carol, only gets off when wearing fish-net stockings, so let's avoid her." It is highly likely that a family member, friend, close work colleague, favourite celebrity or sports idol will come out to you, and then what are you going to do? Disown your child? Cut off your friend? Ignore your work colleague? Begin to hate certain movies/music? Stop following your favourite sport? No, you'll accommodate because you are not an irrational person. 

It is up to you, but why not just accommodate your views now? It'll save you trouble down the road.

One final note. My sense is that you are an educated, reasonable person as you can use a computer, write a coherent paragraph, and express yourself; these are not the characteristics of an idiot. I am assuming that what you really don't like are the extremes; the cross-dressing, the 57 different terms to express gender, the 'in-your-face' people demanding your compliance, etc., and for what it is worth, I don't like them much either. Can I suggest that you simply ignore them? I do, and it works.

Gay people have been around forever, and acceptance of gay people isn't going to go away anytime soon. When it affects you personally, you are going to change your views, so why not just do it now and get it over with?

 

 

[Skip]

 In a nutshell this is the number one reason that so many still reject the LBQT

*offensive word removed by Moderation*

... "what you really don't like are the extremes; the cross-dressing, the 57 different terms to express gender, the 'in-your-face' people demanding your compliance, etc "

[longwood50]

23 hours ago, Thaiger said:

Thai government continues to disenfranchise one group of Thai society as conservative elements of the Thai government resist changes to Thaland’s marriage laws.

I believe this is a bit of an over reach.  No Thailand is preserving the traditional definition of marriage and that is a union between 1 man and 1 women.  Using the "standard" by the OP I guess Thailand is disenfranchising men who would like to have more than 1 wife, or a union between or how about some of these unions that have literally been suggested. 

 

1. The Berlin Wall

2. The Eiffel Tower

3. A Train Station

4. A Pillow

5. A Barbie Doll

6. Fairground Rides

7. A Cardboard Cutout of Robert Pattinson

8. A Snake

9. Trees

10. A Cardboard Cutout of Himself

11. The Ghost of a Haitian Pirate

12. A Chandelier (Almost
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/624426/marriages-involving-non-human-partners

 

Now I am not for depriving two people who wish to enjoy whatever whatever rights or benefits they feel deprived of by not being "married"  However that is not the true goal of the LGTB community.  They want the public not only to be acceptive of the lifestyle but bow advocacy to it.  They want the public to bestow the term "marriage" not for equal rights but rather to have the public convey that the LGTB is "normal" on the same basis as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman.  

The very definition of normal is : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.  When over 90% of the world considers themselves straight, that is what would be termed "NORMAL"  The reverse is when it is not usual, typical, or routine, that would be ABNORMAL.  The LGTB community's real goal is to slowly have society through public perception promote in the mindset of people that the behavior is "NORMAL"  

I don't care nor do I believe many people do, about what others choose for their own sex life and partnership.  However, this constant almost daily refrain or shoving it it everyone's face and essential demand fealty to it, is rude,  No different than if someone was constantly pushing their religious doctrine.  I would certainly favor either some form of civil union or legal contract that provides whatever rights, protections, or benefits equivalent to those given to "married" couples.  That is equality.  
 

 

 

[Marc26]

19 hours ago, HolyCowCm said:

Surprise surprise = not! When they finally give them equal rights to marry then they should give the foreing men the same equal rights in marriage to a Thai woman as the same a foreign female married to a Thai man has. I don;t thinkj either will happen for a long time and maybe never the foreing man will get rights the same as a foreing married woman. 

On another note based to the article, 10% seems like a heck of a lot. 65,000,000 people = 6,500,000 non heterosexual people. Wow! Doesn't suprise me as from how many lesbians there seem to be alone in CM. Both my daughters also have 2-3 very good gay friends here from school ans I like all of them as nice kids. I wonder if Thailand leads the world in the most type of these type of people per population. And no, I am not biased, phobic or a hater, but just making a statement.

I think Thailand does a better job than most countries as being accepting 

 

Whereas in say, North America, the gay community is mostly on to themselves 

 

But as you pointed out about your daughter's friends

It extremely common to have gay friends in your group 

[Marc26]

14 hours ago, oldschooler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/21/number-people-uk-identifying-heterosexual-falls-again-ons
 

UK non- hetero =7% = normal deviation ; which proportion I believe has been constant throughout human history everywhere and wouldn’t I think be widely different anywhere so no where near 10%. 

Marriage for me is for a heterosexual man & woman to conceive, produce & raise their own blood children within a legal protective framework for wife & kids = Natural Family = Strong Society. Needs removal from Religion.

Any Other Legal Intimate Bond  = Civil Partnership = Abnormal Society= Get the hell away from me. Even normal marriage without kids seems weird. 

Freely admit I probably haven’t thought this all the way through. Gay People “ marrying” and adopting kids though makes me sick. As do “ Ladyboys”. Can’t help it. Let them live in their unnatural peace ; just don’t want them around me or my family. 

Trust me, not many people want to be around you

 

So I think it is safe to say, you don't need to worry.....

[Marc26]

46 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

I believe this is a bit of an over reach.  No Thailand is preserving the traditional definition of marriage and that is a union between 1 man and 1 women.  Using the "standard" by the OP I guess Thailand is disenfranchising men who would like to have more than 1 wife, or a union between or how about some of these unions that have literally been suggested. 

1. The Berlin Wall

2. The Eiffel Tower

3. A Train Station

4. A Pillow

5. A Barbie Doll

6. Fairground Rides

7. A Cardboard Cutout of Robert Pattinson

8. A Snake

9. Trees

10. A Cardboard Cutout of Himself

11. The Ghost of a Haitian Pirate

12. A Chandelier (Almost
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/624426/marriages-involving-non-human-partners

Now I am not for depriving two people who wish to enjoy whatever whatever rights or benefits they feel deprived of by not being "married"  However that is not the true goal of the LGTB community.  They want the public not only to be acceptive of the lifestyle but bow advocacy to it.  They want the public to bestow the term "marriage" not for equal rights but rather to have the public convey that the LGTB is "normal" on the same basis as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman.  

The very definition of normal is : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.  When over 90% of the world considers themselves straight, that is what would be termed "NORMAL"  The reverse is when it is not usual, typical, or routine, that would be ABNORMAL.  The LGTB community's real goal is to slowly have society through public perception promote in the mindset of people that the behavior is "NORMAL"  

I don't care nor do I believe many people do, about what others choose for their own sex life and partnership.  However, this constant almost daily refrain or shoving it it everyone's face and essential demand fealty to it, is rude,  No different than if someone was constantly pushing their religious doctrine.  I would certainly favor either some form of civil union or legal contract that provides whatever rights, protections, or benefits equivalent to those given to "married" couples.  That is equality.  
 

 

Equality is not having old white guys say what you can and can not do

 

 

[oldschooler]

3 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

Equality is not having old white guys say what you can and can not do

Not is it having snowflake millennial or socialist types or freaks promoting clearly abnormal lifestyles as regular.
Marriage for ALL people who can’t reproduce is mockery. 
Longwood is right and I would go further and say these types want to acquire the trappings of Normal family & society life to rub the noses of regular folk in their rights then to undermine it all saying look it’s not required.

[oldschooler]

3 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Respectfully Mr Schooler, I don't think that your post(s)/position(s) are entirely rational.

First, the numbers. Whether there are 10% gay people about (the generally accepted number) or7% (your number) simply doesn't matter; there are gay people about and it is a virtual certainty that you know some of them, although unwittingly.

Second, do the "vast majority" feel the same as you? That may have been true 50 years ago, but it flies in the face of things today; the evidence is all the gay-friendly laws that have been passed in the last decade or two. If the "vast majority" were against them, politicians wouldn't have passed them and courts wouldn't have upheld them. Moreover, it is a generational thing; the younger a person is, the more accepting they are. Us older folk are going the way of the dinosaurs.

Third, I find that those who are okay with gay rights get there in roughly two ways. First, the intellectual arguments in favour of non-discrimination are effective. Second, people get affected personally and that changes their views.

In my case, I took a gap year after high school many (MANY!) years ago and moved town to share a flat with a platonic female pal of mine. The first or second night there, she sat me down and told me that she was Bi, and then filled me in on the sex lives of all the people that I had known in high school; to say it was a shock would be a wild understatement. What to do? She was my friend, so I couldn't hate her for being Bi, so instead we made a habit of going 'girl-watching' together and had a great time. We still do it to this day.

This (para above) will almost certainly happen to you, sooner or later, as judging people by their sex life isn't rational. Do you currently enter a cocktail party, stand at the doorway, and say to your wife things like "That's Angela. We used to be friends, but since she got married, she doesn't do oral anymore, so I don't talk to her" or "That's Tom; he prefers it in the afternoon, so we won't be speaking to him." or "That woman, Carol, only gets off when wearing fish-net stockings, so let's avoid her." It is highly likely that a family member, friend, close work colleague, favourite celebrity or sports idol will come out to you, and then what are you going to do? Disown your child? Cut off your friend? Ignore your work colleague? Begin to hate certain movies/music? Stop following your favourite sport? No, you'll accommodate because you are not an irrational person. 

It is up to you, but why not just accommodate your views now? It'll save you trouble down the road.

One final note. My sense is that you are an educated, reasonable person as you can use a computer, write a coherent paragraph, and express yourself; these are not the characteristics of an idiot. I am assuming that what you really don't like are the extremes; the cross-dressing, the 57 different terms to express gender, the 'in-your-face' people demanding your compliance, etc., and for what it is worth, I don't like them much either. Can I suggest that you simply ignore them? I do, and it works.

Gay people have been around forever, and acceptance of gay people isn't going to go away anytime soon. When it affects you personally, you are going to change your views, so why not just do it now and get it over with?

Separatism the clear answer to Incompatibility & Irrationality in Society. Accommodating the incompatible & irrational within western society has driven it quite mad & conflicted as it’s gone too far now.
 

Compare to Eastern Europe which has no truck with failed multi- culturalism so has maintained national cultural identity. Zero Syrians in Poland ( unless Neuro scientist / brain surgeon types). 
 

Let all Freaks live in Freaktown. 

Let all Religious Fanatics & Simpletons live only with each other. European Enlightenment & Science/ Rationality now 300 years old but Rejected. so bye bye.

All Violent & Serious Criminals to Greenland.

Rational Conservatives cannot coexist alongside Irrational Socialists, etc, etc

[Fanta]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

I don't care nor do I believe many people do, about what others choose for their own sex life and partnership.  However, this constant almost daily refrain or shoving it it everyone's face and essential demand fealty to it, is rude,  No different than if someone was constantly pushing their religious doctrine.  I would certainly favor either some form of civil union or legal contract that provides whatever rights, protections, or benefits equivalent to those given to "married" couples.  That is equality.  

I don’t care who does what with who and I also think that some of the LGBQT+ crowd have gone way overboard with some of their demands such for a LGBQT+ syllabus to be included in primary schools and the pronouns foolishness.  Much like the BLM movement started off with the best of intentions and was later hijacked by radicals to it’s detriment. Like a certain religion is often portrayed as being under the command of fanatics when that is clearly not true. The loudest voices don’t necessarily represent the opinions of all their group. Let the stigma of coming out as LGBQT+ be reduced and hopefully the “crazies” will be silenced by their own supporters.

41 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Not is it having snowflake millennial or socialist types or freaks promoting clearly abnormal lifestyles as regular.
Marriage for ALL people who can’t reproduce is mockery. 
Longwood is right and I would go further and say these types want to acquire the trappings of Normal family & society life to rub the noses of regular folk in their rights then to undermine it all saying look it’s not required.

 And the argument against people that cannot have children so they shouldn’t be married would lead to a lot of children not being adopted. It also implies that all LGBQT+ people are unworthy or incapable of caring for children. If a family provides a safe, supportive and nurturing environment for a child what else do you want? 

[oldschooler]

8 minutes ago, Fanta said:

I don’t care who does what with who and I also think that some of the LGBQT+ crowd have gone way overboard with some of their demands such for a LGBQT+ syllabus to be included in primary schools and the pronouns foolishness.  Much like the BLM movement started off with the best of intentions and was later hijacked by radicals to it’s detriment. Like a certain religion is often portrayed as being under the command of fanatics when that is clearly not true. The loudest voices don’t necessarily represent the opinions of all their group. Let the stigma of coming out as LGBQT+ be reduced and hopefully the “crazies” will be silenced by their own supporters.

 And the argument against people that cannot have children so they shouldn’t be married would lead to a lot of children not being adopted. It also implies that all LGBQT+ people are unworthy or incapable of caring for children. If a family provides a safe, supportive and nurturing environment for a child what else do you want? 

Orphans can be adopted by any stable partnership passing set criteria. Just don’t agree that same sex or weird couples should qualify but seems they can. 

[Marc26]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

Not is it having snowflake millennial or socialist types or freaks promoting clearly abnormal lifestyles as regular.
Marriage for ALL people who can’t reproduce is mockery. 
Longwood is right and I would go further and say these types want to acquire the trappings of Normal family & society life to rub the noses of regular folk in their rights then to undermine it all saying look it’s not required.

Soon all you old white guys will die off and the world will truly be a less hateful place 

[Soidog]

4 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

the 'in-your-face' people demanding your compliance, etc

A great post there SW. I think this modern world has created such a fast interchange of opinions, views and ideas, that’s we now have an hyper-impatient generation. They think that because they can envision a better, more equal and fairer world, that it must happen right now, immediately. They see “old attitudes” as a barrier in delivering the perfect world. This is not unusual as each generation wishes to improve on what the previous has achieved. However today, particularly in the West, they want it right now. As a result, unless you actively speak out against those who are the barriers to change, you are seen as part of the problem. A couple of years ago I was told that it’s not enough to simply not be racist. I had to demonstrate my dislike of racism. I had to personally act to show first hand I will not tolerate racism. The same is true for many who are gay. It’s not enough for me to accept it and hold no bias against anyone. I’m now told that I may have “unconscious bias”. I may not know that I’m harbouring bad thoughts about gay or black people. Western companies are now increasingly offering training about unconscious bias; attendance is not an option.  To me, this is taking things simply too far. It almost feels like a step in the direction that will lead to a day where I’m told I need to try gay sex or I can’t ever fully accept gay people (Ok, I’m deliberately exaggerating to make the point).  It has a sense of how we approached witch trials in the 1500-1600. Where non attendance of an unconscious bias training session is seen the same as a woman who floated when put in a river. 
 

My concern with this attitude by the “younger generation” is that it is totally alienating fair minded, reasonable and progressive thinking older people. To even ask a question relating to same sex marriage, immigration, climate change or even Covid vaccination labels you immediately as a racist bigot who is happy to see armageddon and needs “cancelling”. How do we have the debates and clam discussions required in order to evolve a better understanding and a better world?  Polarisation of views and opinions, fuelled by social media is driving people to a world of conformation bias. Where all they will watch and listen to are those who hold the same opinion. Where YouTube will continue to feed you far right propaganda just for watching a documentary on Nazis.  This is truly a scary situation for families and ultimately nations. 

[riclag]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I believe this is a bit of an over reach.  No Thailand is preserving the traditional definition of marriage and that is a union between 1 man and 1 women.  Using the "standard" by the OP I guess Thailand is disenfranchising men who would like to have more than 1 wife, or a union between or how about some of these unions that have literally been suggested. 

1. The Berlin Wall

2. The Eiffel Tower

3. A Train Station

4. A Pillow

5. A Barbie Doll

6. Fairground Rides

7. A Cardboard Cutout of Robert Pattinson

8. A Snake

9. Trees

10. A Cardboard Cutout of Himself

11. The Ghost of a Haitian Pirate

12. A Chandelier (Almost
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/624426/marriages-involving-non-human-partners

Now I am not for depriving two people who wish to enjoy whatever whatever rights or benefits they feel deprived of by not being "married"  However that is not the true goal of the LGTB community.  They want the public not only to be acceptive of the lifestyle but bow advocacy to it.  They want the public to bestow the term "marriage" not for equal rights but rather to have the public convey that the LGTB is "normal" on the same basis as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman.  

The very definition of normal is : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.  When over 90% of the world considers themselves straight, that is what would be termed "NORMAL"  The reverse is when it is not usual, typical, or routine, that would be ABNORMAL.  The LGTB community's real goal is to slowly have society through public perception promote in the mindset of people that the behavior is "NORMAL"  

I don't care nor do I believe many people do, about what others choose for their own sex life and partnership.  However, this constant almost daily refrain or shoving it it everyone's face and essential demand fealty to it, is rude,  No different than if someone was constantly pushing their religious doctrine.  I would certainly favor either some form of civil union or legal contract that provides whatever rights, protections, or benefits equivalent to those given to "married" couples.  That is equality.  
 

 

Again ,There is a good reason why societal laws through centuries have been struggling with these misfits !