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

[Chatogaster]

23 hours 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.  

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. 

 

In a beehive of e.g. 40,000 bees exactly one bee will be a fertile female (aka the queen). Even so, that extreme ratio (and the "seemingly unlikely" existence of that queen) is 100% normal (or perhaps "natural", to use a less ambivalent word). I'm just giving that as a simplified example to indicate that using linguistics to "prove" truths and moralities of societies just amounts to silly word-games, so let's refrain from them.

I appreciate you already did that (mostly) in your reply and that you toned down your claims from being proven truths into personal beliefs. I respect your belief (even though I don't respect your earlier attempts at "proving" them). If all you're after is the introduction of a more nuanced nomenclature to distinguish between traditional values and future values, I have no problem with that.

 

[astro]

13 hours ago, longwood50 said:

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. 

Talking about yourself, are you?

If 90/10 constitutes the normality pattern, then 100/0 is abnormal.

Shall I repeat that using crayons?

 

13 hours ago, longwood50 said:

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

I am afraid there are no prizes for obvious common knowledge, well, known to most - you have some catching up to do.

13 hours ago, longwood50 said:

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. 

That's disingenous.

Hair colour is not a sexual orientation, straight, bi, homo are.

Again: Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by astro
quote removed

[astro]

13 hours ago, longwood50 said:

s 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.

Nobody here, other than yourself, has suggested anything about a gay gene or made any spurious arguments about it.

13 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Why is it so terrible to say, I just find I am attracted to a person of the same sex. 

Not terrible at all, as I already deducted, you do not have any gay friends. It's also not terrible to say that one doesn't know why this is so.

13 hours ago, longwood50 said:

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. 

I am glad you realise people do not choose their 'race', there is hope after all. Same as hair colour preference, which car you prefer is not a sexual orientation.

But let's play: could you choose to feel attracted to whichever sex you like, just as you choose Italian food today, maybe a curry tomorrow?

Just stick with straight, because you wouldn't want to be "abnormal"?

[Thaidup]

What's the big deal anyway? We don't see the LGBT!@*^$ groups complaining about Indonesia for example, The teenagers there get whipped if they are caught in public. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1535420/horrifying-moment-unmarried-indonesian-woman-is-dragged-into-a-busy-square-and-flogged-before-a-bloodthirsty-crowd-for-violating-sharia-law/

[astro]

4 minutes ago, Thaidup said:

We don't see the LGBT!@*^$ groups complaining about Indonesia for example

Well, you don't see so, because you're not looking.

A Sun sensationalist article, by contrast, caught your attention.

[Faraday]

This is clearly an emotive subject that needs to be approached with a degree of sensitivity.

There are also a few members of different generations, with different experiences.

Please be tolerant of each other, even though opinions may differ, a lot.

Thank you

Moderator

[longwood50]

12 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

40,000 bees exactly one bee will be a fertile female

The fact that there is only 1 queen is normal, typical, and routine.  To have more than 1 queen would be abnormal.  With 90%+ of the world heterosexual, that is "the norm"  

The spectrum of social morals ranges from being celibate to total hedonism and depravity.  Where society draws its line matters.  It conveys what it believes it "normal"  In some countries it is normal to have multiple wives, have wives at puberty. Thailand is drawing its line that "marriage" is defined as it traditionally has as a union between a man and a woman.  

Again, my point was and still is, this is not an "equal rights" issues.  If it was, the LGTB community would not be fighting to obtain the word "marriage"  A civil union or contract of rights would be all that is necessary to gain totally equal benefits.  They want society to "sanction" the normality of their behavior to indoctrinate future generations that it is "normal" behavior.  No different than the girl in the Muslim community believes it is totally normal to get married at puberty. 

[longwood50]

9 hours ago, astro said:

If 90/10 constitutes the normality pattern, then 100/0 is abnormal.

No if 90%+ a percentage much disputed is "normal"  than the 10% is abnormal.  Using your thinking if one can call it that any percentage other than 90% would be abnormal.  Normal is what is "typical, routine, or common" it is not a specific percentage.  

 

 

[longwood50]

9 hours ago, astro said:

Hair colour is not a sexual orientation, straight, bi, homo are.

Again: Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?

You really are like Thomas Paine was referring to when he said that attempting to use reason with a person who has renounced all reason is like giving medicine to a dead person. 

People can be "attracted" to another person for many reasons not just sexual orientation.  The fact that two people lets say are "gay" does not necessarily equate to them being attracted to each other. 

And yes, I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  I did not find people of the same sex to be someone I was ever physically attracted to. 

[Marc26]

33 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

You really are like Thomas Paine was referring to when he said that attempting to use reason with a person who has renounced all reason is like giving medicine to a dead person. 

People can be "attracted" to another person for many reasons not just sexual orientation.  The fact that two people lets say are "gay" does not necessarily equate to them being attracted to each other. 

And yes, I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  I did not find people of the same sex to be someone I was ever physically attracted to. 

No you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex

 

You were born with that preference 

[farang]

how about if you are stright,as man and women, or if a couple is gay, live your own life but do not try to push your idea on to others who dont believe your way. one way dont have to accept the other way if it dont fit their choice.to each his own.i perfer the beautiful thai woman,yep im a guy.

[Tim_Melb]

50 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

No if 90%+ a percentage much disputed is "normal"  than the 10% is abnormal.  Using your thinking if one can call it that any percentage other than 90% would be abnormal.  Normal is what is "typical, routine, or common" it is not a specific percentage.  

 

You clearly have no understanding of the difference between "normal" and a "majority" just because the "majority" of a population is heterosexual, that does not make the minority that are not heterosexual "abnormal". Further it is scientific FACT that in all mammals approximately 7% of the population displays homosexuality, ALL mammals, this is normal throughout nature. In some species the numbers are higher, others lower, but it is completely NORMAL. Just because you don't like the idea of homosexuality does not make it "abnormal". 

[Tim_Melb]

5 minutes ago, farang said:

how about if you are stright,as man and women, or if a couple is gay, live your own life but do not try to push your idea on to others who dont believe your way. one way dont have to accept the other way if it dont fit their choice.to each his own.i perfer the beautiful thai woman,yep im a guy.

Absolutely right, which is why homosexual couples should be free to marry. They are not pushing their ideas on others but some are pushing ideas on them by blocking them from being able to marry. 

[longwood50]

16 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

7% of the population displays homosexuality

That is an outright lie.  Homosexualty means the person or animal has sex only with same sex.  The fact that a dog humps your leg does not demonstrate some form of trans species behavior.   

Normal is exactly what it says.  What is usual, typical or routine.   People are "usually" heterosexual, The "typical" person is heterosexual.  The overwhelming majority of people engage in the "routine" of heterosexual sex. 

Having group sex is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine"  Parter swapping, is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine".  Bondage and dominations are not "normal, typical, or routine"  The fact that they are perfectly legal does not make the behavior "normal"  The opposite of "normal" is "abnormal"  Something that does not conform to what is "typical"  

 

Definition of normal

 (Entry 1 of 2)

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

In the USA the constitution specifically mandates "FREEDOM OF RELIGION"  There is a "religious group" called the Children of God international. David “Moses” Berg founded this communist Christian offshoot in California in 1968. For someone so concerned with moral decay and evolution, Berg had a very sex-centric perspective on how to spread the views of Jesus, including reported recruitment through “flirty fishing” (i.e. using young women to lure in new members by having sex with them) and apparently opposing anti-pedophilia laws – according to some former members, having sex with children was not only permitted, but also a divine right.

Now while I would defend their right of the Children of God  to practice their "religion" in no way would I support the government coming out and sanctioning it as a religious organization thereby validating it as equivalent to being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist.  The same is true of LGTB.  While I would defend their right to live the way they wish, I strongly object to the goverment putting any imprimator on the lifestyle that connotes it is equivalent to traditional marriage.  

If there are some inequalities in benefits or privileges then rectify those through the recognition of civil unions or civil contracts.  But changing the definition of "marriage" I don't favor.  Calling a duck a chicken does not make it a chicken.  Calling a union between two people of the same sex a "marriage" does not make it a marriage.  

 

 

 

 

[Fanta]

54 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Having group sex is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine"  Parter swapping, is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine".  Bondage and dominations are not "normal, typical, or routine"  The fact that they are perfectly legal does not make the behavior "normal"  

Perhaps you need to get out more? All joking aside, as a highly decorated Grammar Policeman I feel compelled to butt in - “normal” and “abnormal” are sometimes dependent on the circumstances, not always cut and dry, and can be viewed as inflammatory words

The use of ”typical” and “atypical/different” have been proven to reduce knicker twistage by up to 90%

I’ll see myself out.

 

[Faraday]

I would like to remind you all, of the title:

Two decade-long battle for same-sex marriage in Thailand.

Please stay on the topic.

 

Thank you again

Moderator

 

 

 

[Tim_Melb]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

That is an outright lie.  Homosexualty means the person or animal has sex only with same sex.  The fact that a dog humps your leg does not demonstrate some form of trans species behavior.   

Normal is exactly what it says.  What is usual, typical or routine.   People are "usually" heterosexual, The "typical" person is heterosexual.  The overwhelming majority of people engage in the "routine" of heterosexual sex. 

Having group sex is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine"  Parter swapping, is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine".  Bondage and dominations are not "normal, typical, or routine"  The fact that they are perfectly legal does not make the behavior "normal"  The opposite of "normal" is "abnormal"  Something that does not conform to what is "typical"  

 

Definition of normal

 (Entry 1 of 2)

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

In the USA the constitution specifically mandates "FREEDOM OF RELIGION"  There is a "religious group" called the Children of God international. David “Moses” Berg founded this communist Christian offshoot in California in 1968. For someone so concerned with moral decay and evolution, Berg had a very sex-centric perspective on how to spread the views of Jesus, including reported recruitment through “flirty fishing” (i.e. using young women to lure in new members by having sex with them) and apparently opposing anti-pedophilia laws – according to some former members, having sex with children was not only permitted, but also a divine right.

Now while I would defend their right of the Children of God  to practice their "religion" in no way would I support the government coming out and sanctioning it as a religious organization thereby validating it as equivalent to being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist.  The same is true of LGTB.  While I would defend their right to live the way they wish, I strongly object to the goverment putting any imprimator on the lifestyle that connotes it is equivalent to traditional marriage.  

If there are some inequalities in benefits or privileges then rectify those through the recognition of civil unions or civil contracts.  But changing the definition of "marriage" I don't favor.  Calling a duck a chicken does not make it a chicken.  Calling a union between two people of the same sex a "marriage" does not make it a marriage.  

 

 

 

Your refusal to acknowledge biological facts does not change those facts. Your examples are completely wrong it is well known that in nature there are many animal species that participate in group sex and partner swapping or no set partners at all is the normal behaviour of by far the majority of species on the planet. All of these things are however completely off subject as is your religious diatribe. The fact is that it is completely normal for around 7% of a mammal population to exhibit homosexual behaviour and in a free and fair society where the institution of marriage is the standard way of a couple to demonstrate their wish to be life long partners it is totally reasonable for those people of that inclination to be able to do so. In a free and fair society it is not acceptable for one person to forcefully impose their views on another when the person involved is not causing any harm to others. You and your religious friends are attempting to impose your position on others and harming them in the process by taking away their personal freedoms. You are not only biologically and scientifically wrong but you are also morally wrong. Homosexual people are causing no harm to you by getting married, it in fact has no impact on you whatsoever. You on the other hand are harming them by imposing your twisted beliefs on them. 

[Shade_Wilder]

 

As Mr Faraday reminded us, the topic is should there be same-sex marriage in Thailand.

I say 'Yes'.

It seems to me to be a simple, straightforward question that can be answered. If gay people, whether men or women, are just 'born that way', then it is hard to say that there shouldn't be marriage equality. Alternatively, if being gay is just a lifestyle choice, then I can't think of a reason to change long-standing social institutions merely for what might be a passing fad.

Please note that I am side-stepping the entire 'normal' debate in this thread; forgive me, but it is meaningless semantics.

I made my peace with the gays, for want of a better way to say it, due to my high school friend who was (and still is) a Bi woman (if interested, see my long post on the first page of this thread). However, I am a bit of a Political Junkie and have always enjoyed watching the US political system at work. Yes, I know, it is like watching a dog rub itself on the carpet; there is no value to viewing it, but you can't look away. In the 90s, the US Religious Right wailed against gay people/rights/marriage on the argument that it was a "lifestyle choice", and to be honest I thought that was quite a valid argument. However, the key word in that statement is "Choice". 

Was being gay a "choice"? I had no idea, and when I don't know something, I ask.

In the 90s, I worked in the international non-profit sector in communities that were multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious and due to the nature of the some of the work, it also meant that we had to live in close proximality to one another. So, it was easy to find gay people to ask if their being gay was 'just the way they were' or a choice. I asked about 20 people (please note, the numbers in this thread are approximately correct but rectally-derived) and all of them said that was 'just the way they were'; I believed them. Actually, I believed 19 of them; there was one guy who I thought was lying, but that isn't important. I am a bright guy, and I can usually tell if someone is lying to me. Further, why would 20 people, independent of each other, lie to me? Finally, what benefit would there have been to lying? The were already identified as being gay. To be honest, the most interesting comment that I got from about 15 of them, again independently of each other, was that they wished they weren't gay as it was a "hassle" and caused many problems.

The plural of 'Anecdote' is data, and I had 19-20 people tell me that being gay was just 'who they were', and not merely a choice. The only conclusion that I could draw was that gay people are/were born gay (for reasons that I don't really understand). And, if gay people were simply born that way, it was irrational and illogical to treat their 'gayness' much different from their height, their skin colour, or anything else that was beyond their ability to change. 

If being gay was the equivalent of a natural characteristic like height, the size of one's nose, the natural ability to carry a tune, or some other innate characteristic, then to discriminate against them for that simply didn't make sense.

There it is.

All the evidence that I can find says that discriminating against someone for being gay is like discriminating against someone for lack of musical talent, or for being tall, or for tolerating spicy food, or some other natural thing.

Thus, as discrimination is a bad thing, Thailand should allow marriage equality for gay people.

When they will actually do it is another thread...

 

[Marc26]

10 hours ago, longwood50 said:

That is an outright lie.  Homosexualty means the person or animal has sex only with same sex.  The fact that a dog humps your leg does not demonstrate some form of trans species behavior.   

Normal is exactly what it says.  What is usual, typical or routine.   People are "usually" heterosexual, The "typical" person is heterosexual.  The overwhelming majority of people engage in the "routine" of heterosexual sex. 

Having group sex is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine"  Parter swapping, is "not normal, typical, usual, or routine".  Bondage and dominations are not "normal, typical, or routine"  The fact that they are perfectly legal does not make the behavior "normal"  The opposite of "normal" is "abnormal"  Something that does not conform to what is "typical"  

 

Definition of normal

 (Entry 1 of 2)

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

In the USA the constitution specifically mandates "FREEDOM OF RELIGION"  There is a "religious group" called the Children of God international. David “Moses” Berg founded this communist Christian offshoot in California in 1968. For someone so concerned with moral decay and evolution, Berg had a very sex-centric perspective on how to spread the views of Jesus, including reported recruitment through “flirty fishing” (i.e. using young women to lure in new members by having sex with them) and apparently opposing anti-pedophilia laws – according to some former members, having sex with children was not only permitted, but also a divine right.

Now while I would defend their right of the Children of God  to practice their "religion" in no way would I support the government coming out and sanctioning it as a religious organization thereby validating it as equivalent to being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist.  The same is true of LGTB.  While I would defend their right to live the way they wish, I strongly object to the goverment putting any imprimator on the lifestyle that connotes it is equivalent to traditional marriage.  

If there are some inequalities in benefits or privileges then rectify those through the recognition of civil unions or civil contracts.  But changing the definition of "marriage" I don't favor.  Calling a duck a chicken does not make it a chicken.  Calling a union between two people of the same sex a "marriage" does not make it a marriage.  

 

 

 

You seem to keep coming back to the religious definition of marriage, which used to rule governing way back

 

A) The Christian, Catholic religion should never be looked at as any sort of moral highground, it should be disbanded given all of its atrocities 

 

B) Who are you(not really you particular) to impose your religious beliefs on others 

[Soidog]

14 hours ago, longwood50 said:

And yes, I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.  I did not find people of the same sex to be someone I was ever physically attracted to. 

Did you actually choose? Did you ever sit and weigh up the pros and cons and then make a conscious choice? I suspect you didn’t choose, it’s just how you are hard wired. You never gave it much thought I suspect?  I’m sure this is exactly the same for people who are gay. They simply are that way. They didn’t choose it. It wasn’t a conscious choice to be gay. You are either straight, gay or bisexual. 
 

The orientation I find impossible to understand, but have absolutely no issue with, are bisexuals. I get how people of the same sex are attracted to each other. There is a sort of natural attraction to people who are like you. However, I struggle for example with a man, who can been sexually attracted to a beautiful feminine woman, can also be sexually attracted to a man. Vice versa of course. 

[Fanta]

7 hours ago, Soidog said:

The orientation I find impossible to understand, but have absolutely no issue with, are bisexuals

That’s simple. Bisexuals are greedy. They’ll have sex with anyone - Dave Chapelle 

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, Soidog said:

They didn’t choose it.

Using that logic then everything in life is hardwired into ones DNA.  People don't dislike asparagus, they were born that way.  People enjoy steak, because they have the steak DNA. 
People prefer Scotch over Bourbon because they have that "inherited" Scotch trait. 

B.S.  You can have identical twins where one is straight, the other gay.  I never "thought" about making a conscious choice that I preferred slender, Asian women to chubby middle eastern women either.  

There must be some really deep seated insecurity over having to admit that one chooses a same sex partner vs. an opposite sex partern that causes need for the security blanket" I can't help I am gay" I was born with that and had no choice. 

 

[longwood50]

16 hours ago, Marc26 said:

B) Who are you(not really you particular) to impose your religious beliefs on others 

I did not say it was a religous belief and I find it incredulous that you would want to impose your sexual preference belief and then condemn others for them not wanting you to impose your beliefs on them. 

The fact is it is social norms.  In Muslim countries women are "taught" by social norm that it is "normal" to get married at puberty.  In Nepal, it is the "social norm" for brothers to have sex with each others wives.  in ancient Egypt it was normal and socially acceptable to have public masturbation ceremonies.   In Papeu New Guinea it is normal to have sex with children as young as 6.  In Cambodia one group builds sex huts for teenage girls where they are expected to have sex with different men until they find the "chosen one".  

Now if you asked any of those people in those cultures if they found them strange, they would all likely say no because they were indoctrinated with the culture that said that the behavior was perfectly "normal"   

As I have repeatedly said, this isn't an issue about "equal rights" If it was then a civil union, life partnership or civil contract guaranteeing those rights would be sufficient and I would support that.  This is about "society" by sanctifying and giving the imprimatur of "marriage" to a custom that for centuries and not just christian culture has recognized as a union between 1 man and 1 woman that LGTB behavior is "normal" and encourage people to investigate it.  It is one step in "grooming" future generations.  T.   In the USA there is a constitutional amendment protecting "freedom of religion"  However I would oppose any efforts to have the government suddenly include withcraft, voodoo, the church of Satan, Jeddism and numerous others and give them the same stature as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism.  The same goes for the government by giving LGTB the same name to a union between two people of the same sex vs two people of the opposite sex.  This is nothing more than an effort to slowly brainwash people into somehow viewing LGTB to be just as "normal" This is no different than since the girls in Papa New Guinia are indoctrinated that having sex at 6 is "normal" or in Cambodia having sex with multiple male partners until the "chosen one" is found is a normal practice. 

[longwood50]

On 4/20/2022 at 10:20 AM, Marc26 said:

No you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex

You were born with that preference 

Guess what, 

I guess then I was born to a preference that I like steak, born to a preference that I don't like sweet potatoes, I was born to a preference of Bourbon vs. Scotch, I was born to a preference that blue is my favorite color, I was born to a preference of BMW"s versus Chevrolet, I was born to a preference for slender vs. chubby, 

No, like most things in life, you make choices.  If somehow there was a genetic link that predestined someones sexual orientation then identical twins would both be either straight, or both gay.  That does not happen.  You can have one "choose" to be straight while the other "gay" 

I have said this before, what the heck is so terrible about saying gee I see men and women, and I am more attracted to someone of my own sex.  Do you really need the security blanket of "gosh I didn't have a choice" to assuage your insecurity over your choice. 

[Soidog]

2 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Using that logic then everything in life is hardwired into ones DNA.  People don't dislike asparagus, they were born that way.  People enjoy steak, because they have the steak DNA. 
People prefer Scotch over Bourbon because they have that "inherited" Scotch trait. 

No I don’t think that follows. People are offered asparagus as a child and either like or dislike it. People choose a steak to try and find they like or dislike it. You don’t do that when it comes to being sexually attracted to either the female or male form. I don’t remember going to a bar and being asked if I’d like a blow job from a man or woman. Well, not until I came to Thailand

I never said it was in your DNA and I don’t subscribe to the “Gay Gene” theory. Perhaps it’s an early experience as a child. Or some traumatic thing like a father walking out on the family which makes a young boy crave male companionship? Perhaps a domineering mother who physically punished a young boy may make him turn away from females?  Perhaps that is the deep seated insecurity issue you mentioned?  I don’t now, but it’s possibly a combination of nature and nurture. You can get two identical twins, one who is a serial killer and the other not.  I just think the word Choice is wrong. I never chose to be straight, I Just am. I never tried a bit of cock and decided I liked pussy instead. So it wasn’t a choice for me and hence I’m prepared to say it’s not a choice to be gay.