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

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, astro said:

Why ask to start with, are you often challenged about your heterosexual orientation, such as: have you chosen it, and why, what has lead you to this lifestyle choice, etc.

Next up would be questions about reasons why one would choose to fall in love with someone from a different race, what excuse is there to choose such an "abnormal" (your choice of a term) relationship.

Ah the typical liberal tactic.  Don't answer the question deflect it by challenging the opposition to answer a question. 

Again, why the "NEED" to be called a marriage.  What is wrong with a "civil union" or "life partership" if THEY PROVIDE EXACTLY THE SAME BENEFITS AND RIGHTS.  

Next question in some areas of the world it is permitted to marry at puberty.  Should Thailand stop discriminating against these people and likewise change its laws permitting marriage at puberty?  In some areas of the world it is perfectly acceptable and normal for a man to have several wives.  Should Thailand using your words stop discriminating against these people and authorize marriage with multiple wives.  

As said, this is all a move to create the subliminal message to future generations that the LGTB lifestyle is "normal"  It is not.  A ladyboy may be allowed to cut off his genitals, stuff his body with hormones, shave his adams apple, and inject his body with silicone to manufacture fake breasts and buttocks, BUT THAT BEHAVIOR WHILE TOLERATED IS NOT NORMAL - IT IS THE EXCEPTION.  The same as LGTB and it should rightfully not be conveyed by society as "normal"  Normal is what is typical, routine, and customary. 

[astro]

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You just proved my point.  If things such as being right handed vs left handed were predetermined by DNA then they would always be the same.  The same is true for being "gay" it is just like choosing the left hand vs the right ' A CHOICE" a preference.  

Far from it.

Your simplistic, uninformed take on genetics doesn't hold water.

Being left-handed isn't a choice. The chances of inheritance from a left-handed parent is 24%.

[astro]

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Ah the typical liberal tactic.  Don't answer the question deflect it by challenging the opposition to answer a question. 

Reading comprehension issues again!

From post 199955, which you partially quoted:

Your question:

"What the heck is wrong with saying, hey sexually I find myself attracted to people of my same sex.   Is there that much insecurity in the lifestyle choice that an excuse for it is necessary? "

My answer:

"There is nothing wrong with saying one is attracted to the same sex (with a few geographical exceptions on the world map, where one better kept quiet), saying it wasn't a choice is not an excuse but a statement of fact."

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Again, why the "NEED" to be called a marriage.  What is wrong with a "civil union" or "life partership" if THEY PROVIDE EXACTLY THE SAME BENEFITS AND RIGHTS.  

That would be fine with me.

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Next question in some areas of the world it is permitted to marry at puberty.  Should Thailand stop discriminating against these people and likewise change its laws permitting marriage at puberty?  In some areas of the world it is perfectly acceptable and normal for a man to have several wives.  Should Thailand using your words stop discriminating against these people and authorize marriage with multiple wives.  

First, you're not using my words, secondly I don't answer speculative specious & spurious questions, specially when they're based on logical fallacies, in this case the "slippery slope".

Sorry, I don't have all day to engage all the weird 'arguments' you throw about, from marriage to the Eiffel Tower to questioning whether I support NAMBLA.

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by astro

[astro]

On 4/24/2022 at 10:05 AM, longwood50 said:

Again, you and others don't want equal rights, you want the subliminal message conveyed through same sex marriage that "it is normal"  Words convey a message and meaning.  You have twins, they can be fraternal, identical, or  heteropaternal.  All are twin, but they appropriately point out "they are different"  You can have a married couple that is described as biracial.  That identifies that the couple is "different" than one that is not biracial.  The same is true for same sex unions.  Call if something that provides the same benefits and guarantees but don't try and pass off that a union between a man and a woman is "identical" to a union between two people of the same sex.  They are different, and that designation should be duly noted. 

Nobody wants to make anything identical when it isn't.

Same as you call a biracial marriage 'interracial', you call a gay marriage 'same sex' to differentiate it.

I honestly do not understand what you get your knickers in a twist for, certainly nothing from this thread.

Again, nobody has claimed to make anything identical and nobody has proposed to legalise marrying one's cat or the Eiffel Tower.

[Marble-eye]

10 minutes ago, astro said:

Nobody wants to make anything identical when it isn't.

Same as you call a biracial marriage 'interracial', you call a gay marriage 'same sex' to differentiate it.

I honestly do not understand what you get your knickers in a twist for, certainly nothing from this thread.

Again, nobody has claimed to make anything identical and nobody has proposed to legalise marrying one's cat or the Eiffel Tower.

I don't think that there would be anything illegal about marrying the Eiffel Tower, there was a woman who in 1979 that married the Berlin Wall, at the reception there was plenty of guests from her side of the family, but the turn out from the walls side was pretty sparse.

The marriage was doomed when she started cheating on the wall with a fence.

It is a rare condition called objectum sexuality.

 

[longwood50]

3 hours ago, astro said:

Far from it.

Your simplistic, uninformed take on genetics doesn't hold water.

Being left-handed isn't a choice. The chances of inheritance from a left-handed parent is 24%.

As said, just like "choosing right or left handed" it is not hard coded by DNA and the same is true of being LGTB.  If it was then identical twins would be hard coded with the same sexual preference.  Also if there was a "gay" gene it would soon diminish as same sex couples don't reproduce to pass any such nonexistent gene alone. 

That sir, it your genetics that does not hold water or for that matter make common sense.   You seem to be of this belief that any "choice" in life is somehow predetermined at birth by a persons genetic makeup.  That is patently false.  We "learn" and "choose" based on many factors including what is considered normal which is exactly why I oppose any such advocacy for behaviors that are out of the mainstream. 

Again, why you need the "crutch" that a person was predistined to be gay is beyond me.  People look at other people.  Some do not find anyone sexually attractive and as such are deemed to be asexual.  The majority of people find individuals of the opposite sex sexually attractive and are heterosexual.  Some are attracted to people of the same sex and they are homosexual.  Of those three, heterosexual behavior is "the norm" 

A person chooses if they prefer a muscular partner versus a thin or obese one.  They choose an age they find attractive, hair color, personality, ethnicity, etc.  There is no "gay" gene and thinking there is just reveals a deep seated insecurity about that choice and hence the need to vindicate that choice by asserting that they didn't have a choice. 

  

[longwood50]

2 hours ago, astro said:

That would be fine with me.

We finally agree on something.  Hooray.  I have said all along, I do not wish to deny anyone of rights or benefits based on their choices.  I would say the same thing with a man and a woman who don't marry to provide protection to the surviving spouse.  What I am against it any public affirmation that a union between a man and a woman is identical in all respects to a union between two people of the same sex. 

[astro]

Typical rightwing 'debating': ignoring the answers to one's question and repeat the same again, throwing in the odd patently false assumption and a few strawmen for good measure.

6 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

As said, just like "choosing right or left handed" it is not hard coded by DNA and the same is true of being LGTB. 

You're still insisting on the fallacious assumption that if something is not hard-coded, it must be choice.

Ask any left-handed person if they have chosen to be left-handed, or do you not know any persons with such an "abnormal" trait either?

12 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

 You seem to be of this belief that any "choice" in life is somehow predetermined at birth by a persons genetic makeup. 

No, just saying sexual orientation and handedness are not a choice for most people. You keep pondering genetics. For some traits ihn humans, we simply do not have an explanation, though it is well established that handedness is at least partially inherited.

13 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Again, why you need the "crutch" that a person was predistined to be gay is beyond me. 

Have not read my last four responses to that exact sentiment of yours?

15 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

The majority of people find individuals of the opposite sex sexually attractive and are heterosexual.  Some are attracted to people of the same sex and they are homosexual.  Of those three, heterosexual behavior is "the norm" 

I agree with that. By the same token (see the definition of 'normal' which you posted earlier), the pattern in societies is that 6 - 10% of the population are not hetero, so it is normal for 6 - 10% to have a different orientation.

But we've been through this before.

 

Frankly, I am tired of having to constantly repeat myself and my answers still being ignored.

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, astro said:

Again, nobody has claimed to make anything identical and nobody has proposed to legalise marrying one's cat or the Eiffel Tower

What I am pointing out and I have said so is that you find the union  of two same sex people to be within the bounds of what you consider is normal.  I am pointing out that just because someone thinks what they are doing is "normal" does not make it so and attested to by the person who thought it was perfectly normal to marry their cat or the Eiffel Tower. 

As I have repeatedly said, societies convey to the people who comprise them, what they deem to be acceptable and normal behavior.  In Thailand it is "expected" to take your shoes off before entering the home.  It is "expected" to wai.  The citizens "learn" from what society passes as its rules what behaviors are within the mainstream.  I have no problem with ladybodys but I certainly don't want the government giving some form of public affirmation and therefore convey a sense of normality to the practice of severing a persons genitals. 

I truly don't care who a person chooses to have sex with.  There are people who like group sex, but I would not favor "marriage" between a group.  MAMBLA favors sex between and adult and a child.  As mentioned in some cultures it is acceptable at age 6.  I would not favor a "marriage" between a child and an adult.  

This is all about where society publicly draws its line as to what it deems warrants recognition as "marriage".   If a same sex couple wishes to have a ceremony with a public recognition of rights and benefits identical to a heterosexual married couple, great, I would fully support that.  Call it a civil union, a life partnership, a same sex life alliance, that accurately describes that it is a combination of two people of the same sex rather than a marriage which is a combination of two people of the opposite sex.  

 

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, astro said:

No, just saying sexual orientation and handedness are not a choice for most people. You keep pondering genetics. For some traits ihn humans, we simply do not have an explanation, though it is well established that handedness is at least partially inherited.

I was not the one who brought up that animals practice same sex.  That is what lead to the discussion on genetics.  Also you were the person who decried that being LGTB was not a choice but rather something inwardly programmed.  Hence the discussion on twins and inherited traits. 

The fact is that people whose families are alcoholics have an inherited pre-dispositon to be an alcoholic.  But that does not predistine them to becoming an alcoholic.  They choose.  A person addicted to nicotine may find it harder to stop smoking but that does not mean they can not make a choice to not smoke. 

The same is true with LGTB.  It is a "choice" not anything that is pre-ordained.  A boy may cut off his genitals, have a vagina constructed, inject themsleves with hormones, have fake breast and buttocks through cosmetic surgery but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM A FEMALE.  And they should be accurately described as a "ladyboy"  Two people of the same sex having a ceremony pledging a life union to each other is fine, it is just not a "marriage"  

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, astro said:

I agree with that. By the same token (see the definition of 'normal' which you posted earlier), the pattern in societies is that 6 - 10% of the population are not hetero, so it is normal for 6 - 10% to have a different orientation.

No, that is "abnormal" Normal is what is "typical or routine"   It is like those who practice auto erotic asphixiation.  The fact that there is "some percentage" of people engage in that practice does not make that act "normal"  It only means that they are outside the mainstream.  There are a miniscule percentage of people who still practice canibalism today.  The fact that some percentage of the population practices canibalism does not make the behavior 'normal" 

[longwood50]

On 4/25/2022 at 10:46 AM, longwood50 said:

Next up would be questions about reasons why one would choose to fall in love with someone from a different race, what excuse is there to choose such an "abnormal" (your choice of a term) relationship.

Yes I did use the term abnormal.  That does not mean that such an act is deviant, but it is not normal.  Normally people marry people of their same race.  Interacial marriages are the exception not the norm.  

Again, I have no problem with what people do with their sex lives or who they choose.  Not any different than those who choose to engage in a swinging lifestyle, group sex, or participate in erotic asphyxiation.  However, those are not normal sexual behaviors and hence "abnormal"  and they government should not in any way provide any messaging that somehow sanctions those practices to society as normal. 

I have repeatedly said this.  This push for "equal rights" is just a red herring arguement.  If equal rights is truly the goal, that can be accomplished by legislation providing any group of two or more people can enter into an agreement that provides them guarantees, benefits, and privileges that are identical to a married heterosexual couple.  I can easily envision that this is not just a LGTB issue.  There can be numerous instances where a man and a woman live together and wish to have the same rights.  

However the true goal is not "equal rights".  The demand is for the union to be called "a marriage"  thereby it is like saluting the flag, symbolism.  They want society not just to provide equal rights but to publicly sanction the LGTB union as "normal".   As previously stated some cultures girls find no problem with being married at puberty.  Why? because in their society that is portrayed as normal.  

So to beat a dead horse, I am totally for equal rights, but I am totally opposed to any union that is between same sex couples that is falsely portrayed and identified as a "marriage" which for centuries has been both secularly and religiously defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.  

[oldschooler]

15 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Yes I did use the term abnormal.  That does not mean that such an act is deviant, but it is not normal.  Normally people marry people of their same race.  Interacial marriages are the exception not the norm.  

Again, I have no problem with what people do with their sex lives or who they choose.  Not any different than those who choose to engage in a swinging lifestyle, group sex, or participate in erotic asphyxiation.  However, those are not normal sexual behaviors and hence "abnormal"  and they government should not in any way provide any messaging that somehow sanctions those practices to society as normal. 

I have repeatedly said this.  This push for "equal rights" is just a red herring arguement.  If equal rights is truly the goal, that can be accomplished by legislation providing any group of two or more people can enter into an agreement that provides them guarantees, benefits, and privileges that are identical to a married heterosexual couple.  I can easily envision that this is not just a LGTB issue.  There can be numerous instances where a man and a woman live together and wish to have the same rights.  

However the true goal is not "equal rights".  The demand is for the union to be called "a marriage"  thereby it is like saluting the flag, symbolism.  They want society not just to provide equal rights but to publicly sanction the LGTB union as "normal".   As previously stated some cultures girls find no problem with being married at puberty.  Why? because in their society that is portrayed as normal.  

So to beat a dead horse, I am totally for equal rights, but I am totally opposed to any union that is between same sex couples that is falsely portrayed and identified as a "marriage" which for centuries has been both secularly and religiously defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.  

…..Who intend and are able to produce their own children. Marriage is to legally protect kids & their mother.

[oldschooler]

On 4/26/2022 at 11:31 AM, longwood50 said:

No, that is "abnormal" Normal is what is "typical or routine"   It is like those who practice auto erotic asphixiation.  The fact that there is "some percentage" of people engage in that practice does not make that act "normal"  It only means that they are outside the mainstream.  There are a miniscule percentage of people who still practice canibalism today.  The fact that some percentage of the population practices canibalism does not make the behavior 'normal" 

Yes although homosexuality IS genetically set in vast majority, not a “choice”.” Normal Deviation” but yes Abnormal. Like having one leg.

Not your fault necessarily but still Abnormal / Disabled.

Doesn’t compromise your rights except no you can’t play rugby on that single leg or get “ married” if queer or “ non- binary” freak from “48”genders
 

Would not however include mixed race marriages as abnormal. Let’s leave race outside of this argument.
This practice has added some outstanding people to the normal mix. Also Some few white guys like me can’t STAND white females and would never marry one ! 

[oldschooler]

On 4/26/2022 at 9:57 AM, longwood50 said:

I was not the one who brought up that animals practice same sex.  That is what lead to the discussion on genetics.  Also you were the person who decried that being LGTB was not a choice but rather something inwardly programmed.  Hence the discussion on twins and inherited traits. 

The fact is that people whose families are alcoholics have an inherited pre-dispositon to be an alcoholic.  But that does not predistine them to becoming an alcoholic.  They choose.  A person addicted to nicotine may find it harder to stop smoking but that does not mean they can not make a choice to not smoke. 

The same is true with LGTB.  It is a "choice" not anything that is pre-ordained.  A boy may cut off his genitals, have a vagina constructed, inject themsleves with hormones, have fake breast and buttocks through cosmetic surgery but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM A FEMALE.  And they should be accurately described as a "ladyboy"  Two people of the same sex having a ceremony pledging a life union to each other is fine, it is just not a "marriage"  

Yes, it’s in fact a “ freak show” and often made an “abomination” when they adopt children ….. and use husband & wife terms….. sickening.

[oldschooler]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:10 PM, longwood50 said:

What I am pointing out and I have said so is that you find the union  of two same sex people to be within the bounds of what you consider is normal.  I am pointing out that just because someone thinks what they are doing is "normal" does not make it so and attested to by the person who thought it was perfectly normal to marry their cat or the Eiffel Tower. 

As I have repeatedly said, societies convey to the people who comprise them, what they deem to be acceptable and normal behavior.  In Thailand it is "expected" to take your shoes off before entering the home.  It is "expected" to wai.  The citizens "learn" from what society passes as its rules what behaviors are within the mainstream.  I have no problem with ladybodys but I certainly don't want the government giving some form of public affirmation and therefore convey a sense of normality to the practice of severing a persons genitals. 

I truly don't care who a person chooses to have sex with.  There are people who like group sex, but I would not favor "marriage" between a group.  MAMBLA favors sex between and adult and a child.  As mentioned in some cultures it is acceptable at age 6.  I would not favor a "marriage" between a child and an adult.  

This is all about where society publicly draws its line as to what it deems warrants recognition as "marriage".   If a same sex couple wishes to have a ceremony with a public recognition of rights and benefits identical to a heterosexual married couple, great, I would fully support that.  Call it a civil union, a life partnership, a same sex life alliance, that accurately describes that it is a combination of two people of the same sex rather than a marriage which is a combination of two people of the opposite sex.  

 

Nature determines when humans can conceive which should be the very earliest time for natural marriage. Civilized advanced societies then push that time out 3-4 years to allow for modern niceties like getting educated and career start, extra maturity etc , about which Nature cares nothing. 

[oldschooler]

On 4/26/2022 at 9:57 AM, longwood50 said:

I was not the one who brought up that animals practice same sex.  That is what lead to the discussion on genetics.  Also you were the person who decried that being LGTB was not a choice but rather something inwardly programmed.  Hence the discussion on twins and inherited traits. 

The fact is that people whose families are alcoholics have an inherited pre-dispositon to be an alcoholic.  But that does not predistine them to becoming an alcoholic.  They choose.  A person addicted to nicotine may find it harder to stop smoking but that does not mean they can not make a choice to not smoke. 

The same is true with LGTB.  It is a "choice" not anything that is pre-ordained.  A boy may cut off his genitals, have a vagina constructed, inject themsleves with hormones, have fake breast and buttocks through cosmetic surgery but that DOES NOT MAKE THEM A FEMALE.  And they should be accurately described as a "ladyboy"  Two people of the same sex having a ceremony pledging a life union to each other is fine, it is just not a "marriage"  

Trans is always a choice and a bad one the older it’s done with 40% suicide rate pre & post op. 
Gender Dysphoria is either a mental illness or caused by incomplete brain development at birth. Environment seems to play a part sometimes but no proof ? Tricky …. If a kid consistently wants to dress and behave as opposite sex from say 3 -11 years old they should be assisted to transition and saw an excellent group of such kids on BBS doco. Doing that at aged 30+ …. Like Jenner….just weird and no ….

[oldschooler]

On 4/25/2022 at 10:46 AM, longwood50 said:

Ah the typical liberal tactic.  Don't answer the question deflect it by challenging the opposition to answer a question. 

Again, why the "NEED" to be called a marriage.  What is wrong with a "civil union" or "life partership" if THEY PROVIDE EXACTLY THE SAME BENEFITS AND RIGHTS.  

Next question in some areas of the world it is permitted to marry at puberty.  Should Thailand stop discriminating against these people and likewise change its laws permitting marriage at puberty?  In some areas of the world it is perfectly acceptable and normal for a man to have several wives.  Should Thailand using your words stop discriminating against these people and authorize marriage with multiple wives.  

As said, this is all a move to create the subliminal message to future generations that the LGTB lifestyle is "normal"  It is not.  A ladyboy may be allowed to cut off his genitals, stuff his body with hormones, shave his adams apple, and inject his body with silicone to manufacture fake breasts and buttocks, BUT THAT BEHAVIOR WHILE TOLERATED IS NOT NORMAL - IT IS THE EXCEPTION.  The same as LGTB and it should rightfully not be conveyed by society as "normal"  Normal is what is typical, routine, and customary. 

Yes,  although what WAS “ normal” in the past often needed to be Changed.

This subject is NOT one where” normal” should be changed though

[longwood50]

2 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Yes,  although what WAS “ normal” in the past often needed to be Changed.

This subject is NOT one where” normal” should be changed though

No your logic is flawed.  It was outlawed often in the past.  That attitude has changed however it is still "not the norm"  Norm is what is typical, usual, and routine.  

Again, the issue is not granting equal rights.  The issue is what society views and portrays as it "norms"  If this was not about propgandizing, the LGTB community would accept using a term other than "marriage" 

If I leave my employer and they provide me with compensation and the document used to set out the terms is identical but one says separation agreement, the other says severance package, the third says voluntary resignation agreement, frankly I don't care.

But they only want the term "marriage" to have its definiton changed erasing thousands of years of its tradititional meaning.  When you "groom" an adolescent into a behavior you indoctrinate them that what they are doing is normal.  That is what this issue is about. 
 

In Cambodia it is "normal" to have sex huts where young women have sex with multiple men until they find their chosen one.  Would you favor Thailand embracing that as well?  
Some cultures it is "normal" to have multiple wives, would you favor Thailand changing the definition of marriage to include multiple parters?  

This is all about where society draws its line in terms of practices it considers normal and conveys what is typical, usual, and the norm.  No different than taking ones shoes off before entering a home.  Children look and observe and learn.  

[astro]

9 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Would not however include mixed race marriages as abnormal.

Why not? It is not the norm, so it is "abnormal", just as being left-handed is "abnormal", or being a vegetarian.

Ask your friend Longwood.

Edited April 27, 2022 by astro

[oldschooler]

9 minutes ago, astro said:

Why not? It is not the norm, so it is "abnormal", just as being left-handed is "abnormal", or being a vegetarian.

Ask your friend Longwood.

I DO agree mostly with him on this. However being left handed, like being homosexual, IS Genetic, and not a disease, so must be “Normal / Uncommon”.

As is Inter- racial attraction which is merely statistically uncommon due to far lower opportunity so actually NOT “ abnormal”.

“Abnormal” when used as a derogatory term is unnecessarily harsh.

I also argued that in general terms nearly everything must inevitably Change, in the detail, in an advanced society, usually for the better.

We no longer believe that it’s “ normal” not to wash for a year or burn people at the stake. However re. Marriage I do believe it was quite wrong to throw that open to other than it’s original participants, for the reasons given by our friend @longwood50.

 

[oldschooler]

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

No your logic is flawed.  It was outlawed often in the past.  That attitude has changed however it is still "not the norm"  Norm is what is typical, usual, and routine.  

Again, the issue is not granting equal rights.  The issue is what society views and portrays as it "norms"  If this was not about propgandizing, the LGTB community would accept using a term other than "marriage" 

If I leave my employer and they provide me with compensation and the document used to set out the terms is identical but one says separation agreement, the other says severance package, the third says voluntary resignation agreement, frankly I don't care.

But they only want the term "marriage" to have its definiton changed erasing thousands of years of its tradititional meaning.  When you "groom" an adolescent into a behavior you indoctrinate them that what they are doing is normal.  That is what this issue is about. 
 

In Cambodia it is "normal" to have sex huts where young women have sex with multiple men until they find their chosen one.  Would you favor Thailand embracing that as well?  
Some cultures it is "normal" to have multiple wives, would you favor Thailand changing the definition of marriage to include multiple parters?  

This is all about where society draws its line in terms of practices it considers normal and conveys what is typical, usual, and the norm.  No different than taking ones shoes off before entering a home.  Children look and observe and learn.  

Well I was speaking generally about Change and NOT about Marriage where I fully agree with you.

actually I went further by proposing that marriage without conceiving children is pointless and also wrong. 

[astro]

13 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Would not however include mixed race marriages as abnormal. Let’s leave race outside of this argument.
This practice has added some outstanding people to the normal mix. Also Some few white guys like me can’t STAND white females and would never marry one ! 

Oh.

You're not involved in one of these "abnormal" relationships by any chance?

 

"This practice has added some outstanding people to the normal mix."

Yeah, by the same token I would exempt gays, one-legged, left-handed & vegetarians from being called "abnormal", too.

 

Seriously, you have fallen into Longwood's trap: insisting on the term "abnormal" as supposedly being merely descriptive, while in fact it is derogatory.

 

Just to play the devil's advocate: Hasn't allowing interracial marriage opened the flood-gates? This abnormality should never have been permitted.

It was only the beginning, now people demand all sorts of "abnormal" relationships to be recognised as marriage: the infertile & those who do not wish to breed have always flown under the radar, but now it's homos, ladyboys who mutilate themselves and other abnormalities.

Next it will be marriage to the Eiffel Tower or one's pets!

[Marc26]

I love the lack of self awareness 

 

From these old guys talking about "normal relationship "

 

When a huge % of the world look at the relationship they are in as "not normal" 

 

Oh and they absolutely get their panties over the perception of their relationships!   

[longwood50]

11 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Well I was speaking generally about Change and NOT about Marriage where I fully agree with you

Sorry,

I misconstrued your point.  I don't agree about the sole reason for marriage is to bear children.  There are people who either by choice or because of the inability to bear children still decide to get married. 

However what I object to is the demand not for "equal rights" but for society to provide by legalizing gay "unions" as marriage is the symbolism that it creates that by legalizing same sex marriage society is conveying those unions to be something that society recognizes as "identical" to a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. 

I am absolutely certain, this is part of a very orchestrated worldwide effort to visually propagandize the LGTB lifestyle.  You see it in the movies, where suddenly there is a constant injection of LGTB roles.  Even comic books have Superman kissing another man.  You see it in advertisements where the ads include what are easily identified as LGTB people. You see it in the demand for public corporations and government buildings to fly the gay pride flag.  They want to create the perception that the LGTB lifestyle is just part of everyday life and completely normal. 

I would not favor public corporations or the government hoisting the heterosexual flag.  Companies business is to make money and increase the value of the company for its owners. It is not to use it as a public platform to crusade for social issues.  The same is true for government.  We are suppose to have "equal" protections and clearly by hoisting the gay pride flag the government is taking a position that favors one group over another.  That is patently wrong.