News Forum - LGBTQ+ protesters in Thailand want marriage equality, not ‘civil partnerships’

[oldschooler]

52 minutes ago, Khunwilko said:

I think you need to review the purpose of democracy. Simple "majority" rule is no more than mob rule.

Democracy is "government of the people for the people by the people" .....under that premise the views and needs of "minorities" need to be considered and catered for.

That would be covered by the above” sometimes it’s necessary” part. Majority Govt. (due process) is nothing to do with mob rule (no process).

[oldschooler]

1 hour ago, Khunwilko said:

so you believe that marriage should not be legal for anyone over child bearing age or anyone not capable of having a child?

Marriage is for kids. Period. Mockery for any other purpose. 

[cowslip]

4 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Marriage is for kids. Period. Mockery for any other purpose. 

I think one of your "majorities" will disagree strongly with that rather blinkered assessment.

Do you think that old people should be forced to divorce once their kids reach the age of majority?

[cowslip]

5 hours ago, oldschooler said:

That would be covered by the above” sometimes it’s necessary” part. Majority Govt. (due process) is nothing to do with mob rule (no process).

read my post....you're moving goalposts.

Edited June 18, 2022 by Khunwilko

[Vigo]

On 6/16/2022 at 6:30 AM, Skip said:

And maybe you can get help too...

Good help is hard to find but I see that Thaiger is running that service where you can hire a driver, cleaner etc. 

[Vigo]

5 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Marriage is for kids. Period. Mockery for any other purpose. 

The tax codes, benefits rules and guardianship regulations say otherwise. If I am married to someone for some time, I want that person to have the right to protect me when I am in hospital and I want that person to  inherit my estate when i die.  it's not a big request, but it's fair and reasonable.

[Wanderer]

On 6/16/2022 at 1:52 PM, think-and-ask said:

1. governments ( "law" makers ), non govern-mental organisations,
religions ( speaking "gods"-words ), etc.
by news, big youtubers ( big promotoers /tech companies ) ) in the world,

and big foundations, support at least some goals of governments
have high corruption. example, pharma health care, what
"gives gender operation.

2. marriage became a busienss long time ago.
and rainbow has 7 colors, not 6 as in that flag. 
what is not respect life"

so most people who criticize anything, not fear,
for example gay people, ladyboy etc.
in other words, to turst or believe what they say, after 2.5 corona years is what ?

And this is after it was edited.? 

Nothing personal chief, but couldn't resist it. 

[astro]

6 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Marriage is for kids. Period. Mockery for any other purpose. 

The rest of the world disagrees, but don't let that interfer with your comfort zone.

 

I am not aware of anywhere in the world only fertile couples may marry and are obligated to have kids.

Edited June 18, 2022 by astro

[HolyCowCm]

3 hours ago, Vigo said:

The tax codes, benefits rules and guardianship regulations say otherwise. If I am married to someone for some time, I want that person to have the right to protect me when I am in hospital and I want that person to  inherit my estate when i die.  it's not a big request, but it's fair and reasonable.

Yeah, I would personally love to hear it is ok for this community of people to legally marry. What is the big deal. No marrying animals though.

To me it would make them happy and they would be subjected or benefit to what the married heterosexual people have or deal with. Good for them if this is approved. 

And one big huge thing. We can cancel out their protests and parades and gatherings crying out complaing foul and not subjected to hearing the whining and crying or cackling. But then again they probably will just think of something else under the LGBT-Q banner to squawk about for more equality because it is just never enough. But on another positive hand, married couples could adopt kids that have no parents easier and give that kid love and  better happy chance for life.

For me if it makes people happier like something like this will do, then why do they even care. 

[oldschooler]

6 hours ago, astro said:

The rest of the world disagrees, but don't let that interfer with your comfort zone.

I am not aware of anywhere in the world only fertile couples may marry and are obligated to have kids.

Obviously used & abused for many other unintended purposes.

[oldschooler]

7 hours ago, Vigo said:

The tax codes, benefits rules and guardianship regulations say otherwise. If I am married to someone for some time, I want that person to have the right to protect me when I am in hospital and I want that person to  inherit my estate when i die.  it's not a big request, but it's fair and reasonable.

Civil Partnership then

[oldschooler]

3 hours ago, HolyCowCm said:

Yeah, I would personally love to hear it is ok for this community of people to legally marry. What is the big deal. No marrying animals though.

To me it would make them happy and they would be subjected or benefit to what the married heterosexual people have or deal with. Good for them if this is approved. 

And one big huge thing. We can cancel out their protests and parades and gatherings crying out complaing foul and not subjected to hearing the whining and crying or cackling. But then again they probably will just think of something else under the LGBT-Q banner to squawk about for more equality because it is just never enough. But on another positive hand, married couples could adopt kids that have no parents easier and give that kid love and  better happy chance for life.

For me if it makes people happier like something like this will do, then why do they even care. 

They are naturally the most unhappy people imaginable & always will be . Can’t imagine the mental pressures……I pity them…

[oldschooler]

7 hours ago, Khunwilko said:

read my post....you're moving goalposts.

Your post is clear. explain how majority  supported laws mean mob rule. agree civilized countries are obliged to protect & equalize minorities ….

[oldschooler]

6 hours ago, astro said:

The rest of the world disagrees, but don't let that interfer with your comfort zone.

I am not aware of anywhere in the world only fertile couples may marry and are obligated to have kids.

I don’t mind being a minority on this or anything really….possible I haven’t considered all aspects too …. marriage convenient for many of course ….suppose surveys have been done.

[oldschooler]

8 hours ago, Khunwilko said:

I think one of your "majorities" will disagree strongly with that rather blinkered assessment.

Do you think that old people should be forced to divorce once their kids reach the age of majority?

No, clearly not, but interesting concept though.

[oldschooler]

14 hours ago, astro said:

Have you lived in Thailand for long?

Long enough

[KaptainRob]

Moderator notice

This topic is almost at it's use-by-date but if it remains civil and on-topic it may remain open

until later today

Thankyou for your cooperation

[cowslip]

5 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Your post is clear. explain how majority  supported laws mean mob rule. agree civilized countries are obliged to protect & equalize minorities ….

very poor comprehension or just deliberately misinterpreting - you are trying to make a false syllogism of my posts which is an inaccurate  interpretation.

your false syllogism goes thus....

A simple majority can be mob rule

 

Democracy involves majorities

therefore all majorities are mob rule

 

The reality it seems, is that you are just anti- LGBTQ+ and in an attempt to justify your prejudices have made some absurd comments about marriage. Realising this you are now deliberately misinterpreting not only marriage but democracy in a hope it will obscure your blunders.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Khunwilko

[oldschooler]

11 minutes ago, Khunwilko said:

very poor comprehension or just deliberately misinterpreting - you are trying to make a false syllogism of my posts which is an inaccurate  interpretation.

your false syllogism goes thus....

A simple majority can be mob rule

Democracy involves majorities

therefore all majorities are mob rule

The reality it seems, is that you are just anti- LGBTQ+ and in an attempt to justify your prejudices have made some absurd comments about marriage. Realising this you are now deliberately misinterpreting not only marriage but democracy in a hope it will obscure your blunders.

Are you even a native English speaker? the term “ mob rule” is yours.
Deflecting from your original poor post which bizarrely & falsely equates majorities with mob rule. No idea what else you’re on about.  

[cowslip]

2 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Are you even a native English speaker? the term “ mob rule” is yours.
Deflecting from your original poor post which bizarrely & falsely equates majorities with mob rule. No idea what else you’re on about.  

QED

[oldschooler]

23 minutes ago, Khunwilko said:

QED

Thought I’d try out the new “confused” emoji…. you are also Dismissed

[cowslip]

1 hour ago, Khunwilko said:

the term “ mob rule” is yours

I think you'll find it's been around a to longer than me - you seem to b having language problems yourself.

I think you are allowing your prejudices to cloud your vision of this Thai campaign for equality