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

[oldschooler]

12 hours ago, astro said:

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!

“Abnormal” can, yes, only ever be used & seen as derogatory. So it’s long since been impossible to “ hold the line” on many key issues.

Yes, if all manner of freaks can “marry” now why not add “animal vegetable mineral object” to the mix to further complete the absurdity & mockery & “ normality” of this now destroyed near worthless institution. 

Yes, the clue to my inter - racial relationship status was in the “ can’t stand white women” statement ! plus I imagine being on this forum.

I would still argue biologically that inserting one’s rhythm stick where it was not designed to go, as routine business, is pretty “abnormal”, whilst having a male “wife” rams home the point, so to speak.

Speaking of “flying under the radar”, those deceitful homos ( bisexuals) who “ married” unsuspecting women, had kids together and then decided to “ come out of the closet” at 50, were hardly “ normal” either.

[Fanta]

Times are changing whether we like it or not. 10 years ago you wouldn’t even be having a serious discussion about this. This 13+ year old prank call is proof of that. 

 

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, astro said:

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

It is not a trap.  The normal is a heterosexual union between 1 man and 1 women is called a marriage.  A union between lets say 1 man and 5 women is "abnormal" however it is perfectly legal and therby sanctioned in some countries "as normal" 

Your arguement stating interacial marriage as an equivalent is an apples to oranges comparison.  Though interacial marriages are still not the most prevalent so they are "abnormal"  That does not  translate into meaning that some how they are deviant. 

You still seem to miss the crux of the issue.  Society by publicly sanctioning interacial marriages is in effect saying that though they represent the exception and not the norm that they are publicly accepted and hence society should view them no different than a union between two people who are of the same race.  Society is saying that interacial marriages should be viewed no differently than marriages between a man and woman who are the same race.  I have said that society draws its lines on issues to convey to its citizens what is normal, acceptable, and customary.   

While in a Muslim Country it may be totally permissable to marry a girl at puberty, I would not favor that here.  While it may be permitted to have multiple wives, I would not favor that either. 

  Society while it should not prohibit two people of the same sex from forming some form of legal union, it should not bestow on such unions the term marriage to convey to society that same sex unions are the same as a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.    I have repeatedly said that this arguement about "marriage" is a red herring.  If totally equal rights were bestowed by a civil document called something else, there should be no hesitation.  However it is not the "rights" that the LGTB community is seeking it is wanting the public to call the union a marriage to portray to future generations that the LGTB lifestyle is no different than the heterosexual lifestyle.   If there were two heterosexual couples who were "swingers" and wanted the jointly be married, I would say exactly the same thing about them and they should not be granted a union called a marriage.  I do not believe society should be creating the image that "swinging" is just another lifestyle recognized and condoned as just another condoned lifestyle choice.  Would I prohibit swinging, no but there is a huge difference between not banning a lifestyle and publicly pronouncing its acceptability as something that society should recognize as normal.

PS abnormal is not derogatory.  It is merely descriptive.  It is abnormal for a 70 year old woman to marry a 25 year old man but that does not mean is is deviant  It is abnormal for people to get married in their 70's but that does not mean it is deviant.  A man marrying 8 times is abnormal but certainly not deviant.  The fact that those practices are abnormal but not treated the same as LGTB unions is because society has drawn its line saying though they are not the "norm" they fall within the paremeters of what society wishes to convey are within the boundries of societal values.  It is about where society draws its line and says this is what we deem to convey to our citizens on all sorts of issues including but not limited to appropriate dress, public defamation, taking shoes off before entering a home, speaking about the royal family etc.   

I am of the opinion that while society should not prohibit those who wish the LGTB lifestyle they should take no action that publicly can be construed as an endorsement of it.  I would say the same thing if the Thai government wanted to fly the pride flag.  That is a "public message" intended to convey endorsement.  No different than them publicly calling a union between same sex couples a "marriage"  

[Smithydog]

It amuses me when people get so hung up on a word.

Across history, people have used the word in the manner they see fit. Much is harped about it being a union of people under God's eye but the same biblical teachings say that Eve was created from Adam's rib and they had children. I pretty sure those kids didn't marry each other as such is also forbidden. 

What people wish to call it is up to them. But in my opinion they should be entitled to the same legal benefits regardless of them being together as man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

What they choose to do together or not in private is none of my business. As usual it seems only those with loud voices care to shout it out and like most things in life, are not reflective of most. Call it whatever you like. It is just a word. The benefits and equal respect are what matters.