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

[oldschooler]

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

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

Only in over tolerant “ liberal” west  !

[Soidog]

53 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

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

Sadly not Marc. The youngsters today who think they have it so worked out are exactly the same as the Flower Power people of the 1960’s. They will be replaced by another group of young people who see the world they have inherited in need of change. It’s the circle of life that the young don’t want to be like the old in anyway, Including opinions and views. 

[riclag]

35 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Sadly not Marc. The youngsters today who think they have it so worked out are exactly the same as the Flower Power people of the 1960’s. They will be replaced by another group of young people who see the world they have inherited in need of change. It’s the circle of life that the young don’t want to be like the old in anyway, Including opinions and views. 

Brilliant mate! I dont know why “they” insist on bringing skin color into the conversation!  

[Fanta]

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

Brilliant mate! I dont know why “they” insist on bringing skin color into the conversation!  

Because no-one dares to say anything negative about minorities nowadays for fear of being labelled a racist or entitled or whatever while old white men are easy prey and fair game. Some people that want equal standards for everyone sure as heck don’t practice them. Or maybe they just need a scapegoat?

[HolyCowCm]

56 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Because no-one dares to say anything negative about minorities nowadays for fear of being labelled a racist or entitled or whatever while old white men are easy prey and fair game. Some people that want equal standards for everyone sure as heck don’t practice them. Or maybe they just need a scapegoat?

I was just talking to a friend of mine in theUSA who wished me and family Happy Easter. I said we don't really do it here, but there was one time I did do colored Easter eggs with the kids, but then I had to quickly ask if it is still politically correct to say colored? Or do we now have to say rainbow Easter eggs! I think it should not be PC to use the word Rainbow as it distorts its beauty to me a bit, but it needs to have its own specialized more fitting name as colage or mutli colored etc.

For me the marriage equality thing doesn't bother me as does not effect me, and so in reality it does no harm to the people in the world and so no one should get bent out of shape because of it. But the use of this overly having to be so PC or sensitive forcing people to act that way is intruding on me a little bit if in fact there is nothing malace when someone does say something of the sort. I normally speak in jest and not in hurt or hate and it should only be laughed at or ingnored. But the sensitive crowd takes in farther now and reports it to the police as a hate crime. This is nonsense.

Now, these pictures down below are going a tad bit far in the twilight weird, but for freedom of the new generation I guess it is ok and again it doesn't hurt me or my family one bit so up to them even if it is a little on the way far side. 

So if two people love each other and want to get married then up to them, just don't throw it in my face as special or privileged and live and let live.

 

 

[longwood50]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

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

I would not even term them misfits.  They have their lifestyle.  There a people who want to be a hermit.  I find that unusual but if that is the life the person wants, so be it.  Just don't try and shove their lifestyle on society and expect they not only tolerate it but rather must kiss the ring and pledge fealty to it.  

There is this common refrain that they are being denied some rights and benefits.  If that is really true then lets rectify that with a law that provides a civil union or contract that bestows the exact same rights and benefits.  But I truly don't believe that equal rights is what this is about.  It is about changing the public perception that the LGTB lifestyle is normal and be put as identical to a union between a man and women.  They want future generations to grow up believing that the lifestyle is totally "normal"  No normal is what the majority of people do.   Society should convey the values held by the majority to be "normal"  That is not to suggest that so long as it is legal that minority values should not be tolerated.  Christianity is the most widely held religious doctrine followed in the USA.  Now some may follow witchcraft or voodoo.  Does that mean that the governmental units should represent those who follow with voodoo or withchraft the moniker as a "church" or as a "recognized religion"  I don't think so.  

[longwood50]

19 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

Ladyboys”.

You bring up an excellent point about Ladyboys.  Why is it that Thailand and not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Canada, Austrailia or the rest of the world have the prevalence of ladyboys that Thailand has.  The answer is that Thailand over many years has "accepted" ladyboy's as just an common lifestyle choice. 

That is the goal of the LGTB with marriage.  They want to "normalize" the behavior creating the impression on future generations that it is "not abnormal"  They want to say see society gives us the same identical personna as a man and women with the bond of marriage  sanctione by the government.  

If this was really about anything other than that, there would not be such a push back to accepting civil unions that bestow the identical rights and priveleges.  They don't want the LGTB lifestyle to be just tolerated, they want it validated by society to be just as "normal" as a man and a woman.   Call it a civil union, life partnership, domestic partership, life soulmate or anything else but it is not a marraige.  A marriage has for centuries being defined as a union between a man and a woman.  

Society has for all times used words to convey specific meanings.  Take just the word twins.  Their are "fraternal twins" "identical twins" and "heteropaternal twins."  All are twins but the designation specifies their differences.  That same should hold for marriage.  It is intended to convey the the qualifications to be "defined as a marriage"  That is a union between 1 man and 1 woman.   The state would be misrepresenting that there are "no different attributes" between a union between 1 man and 1 woman and two same sex people.  That is patently false. 

[HolyCowCm]

5 hours ago, Marc26 said:

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 

Yes it is quite normal here. My oldest daughter when living at home through high school used to have her friends come over to our house. One Kratoy boy and one Gay boy and 3 friends who are girls. All just the nicest kids and they remain friends even to this day 9 yrs later even going through different Universities. Quite the characters if you ask me.

[Marc26]

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

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. 

All very reasonable but you obviously see the ignorant and hatred they face just in this thread, so extrapolate that by millions?

 

Oh and they been fighting for decades, so I don't that saying "they want it now" is accurate 

They've been fighting against it for decades

 

Yes, just like everything, there are the extremists

 

But I live in one of the most gay friendly cities in the world. I've run into those extremist exactly never, just seen it on the internet 

[Soidog]

16 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

All very reasonable but you obviously see the ignorant and hatred they face just in this thread, so extrapolate that by millions?

Oh and they been fighting for decades, so I don't that saying "they want it now" is accurate 

They've been fighting against it for decades

Yes, just like everything, there are the extremists

But I live in one of the most gay friendly cities in the world. I've run into those extremist exactly never, just seen it on the internet 

Yes I agree Marc, and I’m not suggesting the “battle” for real equality or freedom to live their life as they wish is anywhere near over. However, I get frustrated at the understand of the younger generation by what the older generation have achieved in such areas as LGBTQ. It’s was only as recent as 1967 that the U.K. decriminalised homosexuality. Before then imprisonment or chemical castration was the choice. Even the great Alan Turing was subjected to such treatment despite saving millions of life’s in WW2. In the 55 years since then, the U.K. has progressed at an amazing pace. However, to listen to the younger generation you would think literally nothing had been achieved. 
 

By pressing too hard for change and change at a pace, the younger people are alienating the very people they need to persuade. You could argue they shouldn’t need to persuade as right is on their side. As with all conflicts or difference of opinion, peace and calm is only ever achieved with a degree of compromise, on both sides. 
 

 

[astro]

8 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.  
 

 

That's nonsensical hyperbole. Those bold examples you list have nought to do with Thai marriage law or LGBT.

To state the obvious: The Eiffel Tower isn't a person and has no sexual orientation.

 

"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. "

No, the standard/regular pattern is, that 90% are straight and 10% not, which makes the 10% a minority. That's different from abnormal.

Edited April 18, 2022 by astro

[astro]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

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

They have been regarded to be misfits by people like yourself and been discriminated against accordingly.

Fortunately, such attitudes are challenged these days.

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, astro said:

That's different from abnormal.

Obviously you need to look up a dictionary. 

 

efinition of normal

 

1a: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

 

 

What is the opposite of normal?

abnormal	aberrant
anomalous	atypical
deviant	irregular
nonrepresentative	nontypical
untypical	unusual

 

Since as you point out 90% + of the world is heterosexual that is "normal" "usual" "typical".  If 90% of men lets say wear underwear, that would be considered "normal behavior" while not wearing any underwear would be considered "abnormal" behavior. 

As to the segment on people wishing to marry things like the Eifell tower, yes it is ridiculous.  It just goes to show that other marriages are also "prohibited"  That does not make not allowing the person to marry the Eifell Tower any more discriminatory that not allowing two people of the same sex to have a ceremony and recognize it as "a marriage"

The fact it does or does not have anything to do with sex is where you completely lost it.  Marriage is not defined by sexual behavior.  It is considered a "union" between 1 man and 1 women.   The man could be completely impotent, or they choose to be celibate.  That does not make that couple any less married. 

You see how you have already become "indoctrinated" into somehow believing that the LGTB is somehow something that society should somehow portray the perception that the LGTB is a "normal" behavior.  Playing devil's advocate, then do you favor having Thailand or for that matter other countries permit marriages between 3 or more people?  Do you favor recognizing marriages between and adult and perhaps a child under age 12, there are those who just like the LGTB community believe that adult/child love is a perfectly normal  behavior.  How about marriages between siblings, or 1st cousins.  You see society for decades has had traditional values that it conveys to the public as to what societal values are. 

Also, there is a huge difference between tolerance and advocation.  I am fully tolerant of the lifestyle that someone else chooses.  However do not ask me to advocate or foster social morals that are by definition.  Not Normal. 



 

 

 

 

[Chatogaster]

52 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Obviously you need to look up a dictionary. 

 

efinition of normal

1a: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

 

 

What is the opposite of normal?

abnormal	aberrant
anomalous	atypical
deviant	irregular
nonrepresentative	nontypical
untypical	unusual

Since as you point out 90% + of the world is heterosexual that is "normal" "usual" "typical".  If 90% of men lets say wear underwear, that would be considered "normal behavior" while not wearing any underwear would be considered "abnormal" behavior. 

As to the segment on people wishing to marry things like the Eifell tower, yes it is ridiculous.  It just goes to show that other marriages are also "prohibited"  That does not make not allowing the person to marry the Eifell Tower any more discriminatory that not allowing two people of the same sex to have a ceremony and recognize it as "a marriage"

The fact it does or does not have anything to do with sex is where you completely lost it.  Marriage is not defined by sexual behavior.  It is considered a "union" between 1 man and 1 women.   The man could be completely impotent, or they choose to be celibate.  That does not make that couple any less married. 

You see how you have already become "indoctrinated" into somehow believing that the LGTB is somehow something that society should somehow portray the perception that the LGTB is a "normal" behavior.  Playing devil's advocate, then do you favor having Thailand or for that matter other countries permit marriages between 3 or more people?  Do you favor recognizing marriages between and adult and perhaps a child under age 12, there are those who just like the LGTB community believe that adult/child love is a perfectly normal  behavior.  How about marriages between siblings, or 1st cousins.  You see society for decades has had traditional values that it conveys to the public as to what societal values are. 

Also, there is a huge difference between tolerance and advocation.  I am fully tolerant of the lifestyle that someone else chooses.  However do not ask me to advocate or foster social morals that are by definition.  Not Normal. 



 

 

 

Slavery has been around for millennia. Until not very long ago, it was normal to have a slave / be a slave / know a slave or owner etc. (and it was an act of terrorism to support the freeing of slaves). Similarly and even more recently, the idea of women having voting rights was an abomination. 

The point is that concluding (statistically) that something is either normal or abnormal at a given time is completely unrelated to applying labels such as "right" or "wrong". While that should be utterly obvious to everyone, the unfortunate problem is that it is not: calling something out as "being abnormal" will be received as "being wrong" by many people.

First you phrase your claim as "the LGTB community wants to convey the idea that same-sex marriages is normal" and then you weaponize the dictionary to prove them wrong. That's just as shallow as the hyperboles you provided. The crux is that you completely ignored that the LGTB community just wants to convey that the idea is "right".

 

[astro]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Obviously you need to look up a dictionary. 

Obviously you haven't read my comment carefully:

The regular pattern is 90/10 hetero/other.

It would be abnormal for 100% of a population to be straight.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

The fact it does or does not have anything to do with sex is where you completely lost it.

Again, you failed to read and/or comprehend my comment:

The Eiffel Tower has absolutely nothing to do with marriage legislation in Thailand.

Your blathering is weird and irrational.

[longwood50]

2 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

LGTB community just wants to convey that the idea is "right".

That is one and the same.  They want society to say what they are doing is "normal and therefore right"  

Again, I could care less what consenting adults choose to do.  However, don't try and inject what basically is a lifestyle of a very decided minority of people and have the government give advocation to it.  

And as repeatedly mentioned I could care less about what someone else chooses as their sexual lifestyle.  However, this is not a push by the LGTB to not be discriminated against or obtain equal rights if it was there would be absolutely no objection to a union of two same sex people being called a "civil union" instead of a marriage.  They want to push the narrative to indoctrinate future generations.  

It is total BS that the homosexual is somehow DNA imprinted.  If that were true, identical twins would automatically share the same sexual preference.  Even more evidence is that same sex couples don't pass their DNA on to their offspring.  That would logically follow that if their was a 'gay gene" it would soon be a diminishing part of the worlds DNA profile.  

One only has to look at Thailand where being a ladyboy has been "normalized"  The result, their are far more ladyboy's in Thailand then anyplace else.  That same goal is the real goal of the LGTB community. 

 

[longwood50]

8 minutes ago, astro said:

It would be abnormal for 100% of a population to be straight.

I am not sure where you obtained that lunacy but I admire your committment to it.  If 90% of a population wears black shirts, that is the "norm"  If you chose to wear a white shirt you would be out of the norm, or correctly termed abnormal.  

You obviously hadn't read my comments carefully  I agreed the Eiffel Tower was riduculous.  The point is just because their demand to be allowed to marry it was turned down, does not mean they were "discriminated against"  

If you think gays should marry and be recognized as such, that is fine, your opinion.  I am fine with LGTB having civil unions that bestow on them all of the same rights and benefits of traditional married couples.  My difference to your position is merely that I believe that the term marriage is one that for centuries has been defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.  I believe it is totally appropriate to give a name that distingquishes that the two unions are not identical.  Just like we have Fraternal Twins, Identical Twins, and heteropaternal twins.  Those terms properly identify that while they are all twins, they are not the same. 

[astro]

7 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

I am not sure where you obtained that lunacy but I admire your committment to it.  If 90% of a population wears black shirts, that is the "norm"  If you chose to wear a white shirt you would be out of the norm, or correctly termed abnormal.  

I merely explained and applied the dictionary definition, since you seem to have a comprehension issue.

If 100% of a population wears black shirts, that would be a bit odd, wouldn't it, not to say "abnormal".

[Tim_Melb]

On 4/17/2022 at 6:25 PM, 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? 

The big difference is that a man must have held a work permit from a Thai employer for a long time (3 years I believe) and have a decent income. A woman on the other hand does not have these requirements nor does she require permanent residency. Just marriage and 3 years in the country as I understand it. 

[Soidog]

1 minute ago, Tim_Melb said:

The big difference is that a man must have held a work permit from a Thai employer for a long time (3 years I believe) and have a decent income. A woman on the other hand does not have these requirements nor does she require permanent residency. Just marriage and 3 years in the country as I understand it. 

That’s incredible. It’s not a topic that I’ve ever heard discussed. I do know a woman from the U.K. who is married to a Thai man but they reside 95% in the U.K. and have no plans to settle in Thailand. Other than that, it’s not something I’ve looked in to. Do you know what the rationale or justification is behind the difference? 

[astro]

4 hours ago, longwood50 said:

It is total BS that the homosexual is somehow DNA imprinted.  If that were true, identical twins would automatically share the same sexual preference.  Even more evidence is that same sex couples don't pass their DNA on to their offspring.  That would logically follow that if their was a 'gay gene" it would soon be a diminishing part of the worlds DNA profile.  

Yet more spurious, specious blathering, unrelated to Thai marriage legislation.

I have shoking news for you: most people do not choose their sexual orientation, or have you chosen to be attracted to women?

As for gays, one only needs to ask them to find out whether its predisposition or choice, but you obviously don't have gay friends.

Next you'll tell us homosexuality can be "cured". lol

[longwood50]

12 hours ago, astro said:

If 100% of a population wears black shirts, that would be a bit odd, wouldn't it, not to say "abnormal"

Again, you obviously got in the wrong line when logic was being dispensed.  If 100% of the population wore a black shirt, that would not only be the "normal attire" wearing anything other than black would be abnormal. 

 

[longwood50]

8 hours ago, astro said:

I have shoking news for you: most people do not choose their sexual orientation, or have you chosen to be attracted to women

Oh please submit your findings to the Nobel Prize committee for consideration of the Nobel prize on newly discovered science. 

Please "choose" who they are attracted to.  People may choose a blonde vs a brunette, a full figured person over a skinny person, an Asian, vs a Hispanic, a person with a nice personality vs someone who has a sour disposition. 

As said, if there was this "gay" gene  it would soon be eliminated from the world DNA gene pool since people of the same sex do not reproduce.  I have to laugh when someone says they were somehow "programmed" to be gay.  Why is it so terrible to say, I just find I am attracted to a person of the same sex.  A person does not choose their race but they sure choose who they find they are sexually attracted to.  Not any different to foods they prefer, clothes they prefer to wear, type of house or car they prefer to buy. 

[longwood50]

13 hours ago, astro said:

Again, you failed to read and/or comprehend my comment:

I am sorry, I find it difficult to comprehend irrationality. 

[Tim_Melb]

15 hours ago, Soidog said:

That’s incredible. It’s not a topic that I’ve ever heard discussed. I do know a woman from the U.K. who is married to a Thai man but they reside 95% in the U.K. and have no plans to settle in Thailand. Other than that, it’s not something I’ve looked in to. Do you know what the rationale or justification is behind the difference? 

I think that legally it's just that Thai society and traditionally a man is supposed to support his wife and children so a woman is not expected to have an income. A man on the other hand is expected to be able to support his wife and family and as such must be able to prove he has a good income with a long term future. It is notable that on paper a man does not have a requirement to have full time residency but the work requirements make that a moot point. It's somewhat infuriating however that a foreign male that is retired can on paper at least never get Thai citizenship because he will never have the employment history required. It's like the subject of this thread, in spite of the general public in Thailand accepting the LGBT+ community especially the trans community the law is still in the past and has no intention of modernising. The citizenship laws are firmly planted in the past and again there is no sign of any changes.