News Forum - Constitutional Court ruling on marriage a setback for same-sex couples

[Benroon]

On 11/18/2021 at 10:03 AM, Paco said:

1 thailand racist so probably will not happen 

2 thailand like to stay in the stone age

wtf has racism got to do with same sex marriage ?

[Benroon]

On 11/18/2021 at 1:23 PM, Aidan said:

I live here and see a lot of lgbgtdtor stuff going on. But that is the country. But the west is now obsessed with this. And I don’t agree with it. Next will be gender question. Again its unhealthy and admire, rarely, the government for standing against this. Too many woke snowflakes about, why marry? just be happy and stop being anti establishment. You have to make a point because no one has ever said no to you. 

Stop being a victim snow flake! Facts and figures bollocks

I can't see whatever school you attended quoting you as one of their success stories but hey there you go!

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

No I totally disagree.  Many states allow civil unions and yet the mantra is still to demand it be called a marriage

Well, this may come as a surprise but Thailand isn't one of the "states" that allows civil unions so any mantra some may have is moot  -  and many of those "states" have similar "mantras" from heterosexual couples demanding the right to Civil Partnerships, as "fairness" works both ways.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

I know of no right or preference that an attorney can not draft into documents granting two same sex partners the same rights of visitation, being an heir, and any other right granted by marriage not available to same sex couples. 

It's not really for me to comment on what you don't know, but if you don't know that a lawyer can't give you the same visitation rights, rights to a pension, rights to a marriage visa, rights on inheritance tax, or any similar rights, then I suggest that you need to know a bit more before you comment on what you're so "certain" of.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

There are numerous examples of pets being named as beneficiaries in wills.   If the lawyers can draft documents granting rights to animals, I am quite certain that they could provide whatever right two people wanted to grant to each other without having the moniker of "married" from the government. 

https://www.insider.com/richest-pets-in-the-world-2018-11#the-star-trek-heiress-gave-her-pets-more-than-3-million-1

See above - Wills are of no relevance at all here, apart from rights in the absence of a Will.

[Benroon]

10 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Using your "logic" if it has not been updated in 10 years that any historical norm needs to be "updated"

Which one are you going to start with?

1. Though shall not kill
2. Though shall not steal
3. Though shall not bring false witness

Those haven't been updated in a couple of thousand years. 

This idea that it has to be called a "marriage" is a red herring.  Whether I call a region a Province or a District if it covers the same thing they are equivalent.  If I say you won first prize or the grand prize the names are different but they mean the same thing.  A gift, and a donation are the same. 

If I say same sex unions are civil unions while heterosexual unions are a marriage they accomplish the same thing.  The LGBT community is not asking for "fairness" they are trying to indoctrinate future generations into believing that their life style is advocated by society as a lifestyle.  That lifestyle is preferred by less than 6% of the population.  The idea that government should some how connote that as the norm is preposterous.  

If they wish to have same sex partnerships so be it.  No one is saying they can't  As for any preferential rights given to married couples those can be eliminated by formal legal civil union recognized by the government.  

So for anything to be accepted in society there needs to be a 50%+ approval rating else you are not worthy of consideration ? The 'norm' as you put it can only apply if it pertains to the above mentioned +50% 

What a horribly intolerant world you live in!

Thankfully the world is moving down the path of live and let live leaving neanderthals such as yourself behind. It's going to take a couple of generations for you to die out but I'm thinking the world will be a better place when that happens

[Stonker]

On 11/18/2021 at 6:39 PM, longwood50 said:

Its aim is not equality and it is an attempt to instill a mindset  in  the future generations that LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality

What on earth are you talking about?

Who on earth has suggested that "LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality" ???

Are we talking about the same planet?

[longwood50]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

What on earth are you talking about?

Stonker, 

This post started about Thailand not granting same sex marriage.  The idea of same sex marriage is not about equal rights it is about elevating the mindset in future generations that LGBT is just like heterosexuality in terms of it being considered as a widely held lifestyle.  

As mentioned numerous times, it is not about rights.  The rights can be provided through in those locations that permit it a civil union.  In those that don't allow civil unions, legal documents can provide those rights.  The want "legitimacy" and not just tolerance of their lifestyle but for the public to embrace it.  

[longwood50]

15 minutes ago, Benroon said:

What a horribly intolerant world you live in!

No I did not say I was intolerant of it.  If two people and a goat wish to form a union, so be it.  Just don't ask me to embrace it.  The fact is that less than 6% of the population considers themselves to be LGBT.  That decided minority should not be dictating the rules for not just the majority but the VAST MAJORITY. 

No one is saying LGTB can not live their lives as they wish.  That is tolerance.  However expecting the majority to "celebrate" it is not tolerance it is subjection to the will of the minority.  

[Stonker]

43 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

The idea of same sex marriage is not about equal rights it is about elevating the mindset in future generations that LGBT is just like heterosexuality in terms of it being considered as a widely held lifestyle.  

Well, that's your view which you're entitled to, however bizarre it may be since there isn't a single recognised LGBT group in the world that's promoting LGBT relationships in those terms.

Literally, there isn't one on this planet.

If you think there is, name any.  Any at all.

49 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

As mentioned numerous times, it is not about rights.

Again, that's your view - however many times you mention it, that doesn't make it any more rational, though, as no recognised LGBT group is doing as you claim.

If you think they are, just name any.

52 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

In those that don't allow civil unions, legal documents can provide those rights.

Sorry, but this is just patently untrue.

How can "legal documents" give someone visa rights only available to those who are married / in a civil partnership? Visitation rights only available to family or next of kin? Exempt them from inheritance tax as a spouse / civil partner? Rights to a pension as a spouse / civil partner? Conjugal rights if imprisoned? etc, etc, etc ...

The idea that a lawyer can give "legal documents" that can is way beyond uninformed and absurd.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

The want "legitimacy" and not just tolerance of their lifestyle but for the public to embrace it.

Who does? 

Name any recognised LGBT group that wants or even expects "the public to embrace it"?

Accept / tolerate - yes, certainly.

"Embrace" - nobody's asking for that, at least not on this planet.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Just don't ask me to embrace it.

Who's asking you to "embrace it"?

Name anyone - any recognised LGBT group -  anywhere in the world (this world) that's doing that.

It's pure fantasy.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

That decided minority should not be dictating the rules for not just the majority but the VAST MAJORITY.  

Again, what the f*** are you talking about?

Where in the world is this LGBT minority of 6% "dictating the rules for not just the majority but the VAST MAJORITY"?

Name anywhere on the planet (this planet) that this has happened, where the rules over same-sex marriage or civil partnership haven't been decided one way or the other by either elected MPs or by a direct referendum.

Anywhere at all.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

No one is saying LGTB can not live their lives as they wish

Yes they are!

... and if that's what the majority want that's how it should be - after all, why should anyone be allowed to "live their lives as they wish" if the majority disagree?

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

However expecting the majority to "celebrate" it is not tolerance it is subjection to the will of the minority.

Where do you get this simply extraordinary idea from?

No-one's expecting or telling you to "celebrate" or "embrace" anything, at least not on this planet - just to obey whatever laws are passed by the majority.

 

 

 

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, Stonker said:

"granting both partners the same sort of protections/rights as those granted to married couples" those aren't in your remit so are a complete non-starter

I can't speak to Thailand and each and every country in the world.  However in the USA it has been law since 2004 that hospitals can not restrict visitation to family members and spouses only.  The patient has the right to dictate who they wish to visit.  The same is true of pension benefits in the USA.  ERISA which is the federal law governing pensions states as such.

To beat a dead horse, whether Thailand, or any other country I see no problem with granting a "civil union" that conveys all the rights of a marriage but is termed a "civil union" and not a marriage.   

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between one man and one woman.  The idea that somehow that termed should no include same sex is not about "equal rights" it is about the public's embrace of that lifestyle. 

Playing devils advocate, if society is allowed to change the definition of marriage strictly because of someone sexual preference than why not allow a marriage between a man and a boy for those in the Man/Boy love association.  For swingers, why can't marriage be defined as a group.  For those who engage in bestiality, why not a man and a sheep. 

I am not for disenfranchising anyone of their rights and receiving identical benefits.  However this is to beat a dead horse not about that.  Even in those areas that fully recognize civil unions, they beat the drum to be called a "marriage"  A marriage has been and should continue to be a term used to describe the formal union of 1 man and 1 woman.  

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I can't speak to Thailand and each and every country in the world.  However in the USA it has been law since 2004 that hospitals can not restrict visitation to family members and spouses only.  The patient has the right to dictate who they wish to visit.  The same is true of pension benefits in the USA.  ERISA which is the federal law governing pensions states as such.

To beat a dead horse, whether Thailand, or any other country I see no problem with granting a "civil union" that conveys all the rights of a marriage but is termed a "civil union" and not a marriage.   

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between one man and one woman.  The idea that somehow that termed should no include same sex is not about "equal rights" it is about the public's embrace of that lifestyle. 

Playing devils advocate, if society is allowed to change the definition of marriage strictly because of someone sexual preference than why not allow a marriage between a man and a boy for those in the Man/Boy love association.  For swingers, why can't marriage be defined as a group.  For those who engage in bestiality, why not a man and a sheep. 

I am not for disenfranchising anyone of their rights and receiving identical benefits.  However this is to beat a dead horse not about that.  Even in those areas that fully recognize civil unions, they beat the drum to be called a "marriage"  A marriage has been and should continue to be a term used to describe the formal union of 1 man and 1 woman.  

It's difficult to discuss this, because you don't seem to know or understand the position on any aspect of this, whether in the USA (presumably your country), in Thailand, or anywhere else and what you're saying is simply factually completely incorrect.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I can't speak to Thailand and each and every country in the world.  However in the USA it has been law since 2004 that hospitals can not restrict visitation to family members and spouses only.  The patient has the right to dictate who they wish to visit.

Well, this forum and the subject is about Thailand, but even what you say about the USA is incorrect.

If a patient is unconscious they can't "dictate" anything so the rules of the hospital / state apply, so if a state doesn't have same sex marriage / civil partnership / domestic partnership registration, then only family and legally married spouses have a right to access - not same sex spouses / civil partners, etc, even if they're legally married / civil partners, etc elsewhere.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

The same is true of pension benefits in the USA.  ERISA which is the federal law governing pensions states as such.

No it isn't, and no it doesn't, as it depends entirely on how each state defines a 'spouse'.

"Although ERISA preempts state laws that relate to, have a connection with or refer to employee benefit plans, the Supreme Court has recognized a general presumption against preemption in traditional areas of state regulation like family law (Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997))."

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between one man and one woman. 

No it hasn't as there is no international definition and marriages which are 100% legal in one country, and have been "for centuries", are illegal in another (and in the USA, even illegal in another state). Obvious examples are child marriages and polygamy.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

The idea that somehow that termed should no include same sex is not about "equal rights" it is about the public's embrace of that lifestyle. 

Well that's your view, completely unsupported by anything else since nobody's asking you to "embrace" anything - and repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any more valid with nothing to support it.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Playing devils advocate, if society is allowed to change the definition of marriage strictly because of someone sexual preference than why not allow a marriage between a man and a boy for those in the Man/Boy love association. 

Because it's illegal under the laws covering the age of consent in every country in the world - at least on this planet.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

(snip)... why can't marriage be defined as a group. 

It is, in over a quarter of the countries in the world (at least 58).

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

For those who engage in bestiality, why not a man and a sheep. 

Because even arranged marriages require informed or parental consent - a sheep isn't capable of giving either.

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

A marriage has been and should continue to be a term used to describe the formal union of 1 man and 1 woman. 

But it hasn't been - like your other claims here you're simply factually incorrect, and while you're entitled to your own opinions however bizarre they may be, you're not entitled to your own facts.

[longwood50]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

you're entitled to your own opinions

Again and to beat a dead horse because you still refuse to read my comments.  I am FOR equal rights.  However I am not for a union between same sex partners to be termed a marriage. 

If the civil union, whether approved here in Thailand or any other country conveys the same rights as married couples then there should be no objection to it.  

However even in states that allow civil union but not marriage between same sex couples the mantra is being beat that "it must be a marriage"  WhY?  They wish to "normalize" in peoples minds their sexual preference as being as common and normal as heterosexual couples.  While they are free to live their lives as they wish, and I repeat I wish to not disenfranchise them from anything, I do not believe that the union between same sex should be called the same thing.  

So perhaps instead of arguing for same sex marriage, one should be arguing for same sex civil unions recognized worldwide as providing the same benefits and safeguards as opposite sex marriages.  

 

[Stonker]

50 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Again and to beat a dead horse because you still refuse to read my comments.  

Bizarre. Simply bizarre.

I'm not only reading all your comments but I've replied to every point you've made  - repeatedly to the ones which are completely factually incorrect which is the vast majority!

You, on the other hand, haven't replied to or acknowledged anything I've said even where I've asked you directly to give any sort of source that supports anything you say - hardly surprising, to be honest, as there are none!

50 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

I am FOR equal rights.  However I am not for a union between same sex partners to be termed a marriage

That, as I've said repeatedly, is your view and one you're as entitled to as anyone else is to theirs.

50 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

However even in states that allow civil union but not marriage between same sex couples the mantra is being beat that "it must be a marriage"  WhY?  They wish to "normalize" in peoples minds their sexual preference as being as common and normal as heterosexual couples.  

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this.

What do you have to support that bizarre idea?

Name any recognised LGBT group, or even any recognised LGBT authority that's suggested that "their sexual preference as being as common and normal as heterosexual couples".

On second thoughts, as you evidently can't do that, name anyone who's LGBT who's said that.

Anyone at all who's LGBT who's said that being LGBT is as "common" as being heterosexual since obviously it's not.

It's just pure and complete fantasy.

As for it being "normal", it's a lot more "normal" than having red hair, and on a par with blue eyes or being left handed!

Are they trying to "normalize" that in people's minds too, as it's simply the way they're born and no more (or less) part of their "lifestyle" than being LGBT?

50 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

So perhaps instead of arguing for same sex marriage, one should be arguing for same sex civil unions recognized worldwide as providing the same benefits and safeguards as opposite sex marriages.

I've not only never disagreed with that, but I've agreed with it very strongly and very clearly:

On 11/18/2021 at 7:28 PM, Stonker said:

Spot on - the vast majority of gays I know, farangs and Thais, think the obsession by a few with being 'husband and husband' or 'wife and wife' is as absurd as men wanting to breast feed and they prefer the far simpler 'partner'.

What I DON'T agree with, though, are the rest of your posts and the rest of what you say.

[Paco]

22 hours ago, Benroon said:

wtf has racism got to do with same sex marriage ?

Maybe time to read it first all... I mistakes in the word

[Benroon]

On 11/19/2021 at 4:05 PM, longwood50 said:

No I did not say I was intolerant of it.  If two people and a goat wish to form a union, so be it.  Just don't ask me to embrace it.  The fact is that less than 6% of the population considers themselves to be LGBT.  That decided minority should not be dictating the rules for not just the majority but the VAST MAJORITY. 

No one is saying LGTB can not live their lives as they wish.  That is tolerance.  However expecting the majority to "celebrate" it is not tolerance it is subjection to the will of the minority.  

Who has asked you to embrace it ? Who has asked you to celebrate it ? (and why is everyone on here using inverted commas when they are totally unneccessary ?)

Show me something where they have directly asked you to do that. I bet you can't. You are simply getting agitated for the sake of it where no need exists. It's like those professional offended on someone elses behalf brigade.

You are obsessed with minorities having no say - so spina bifida people - should have no rights as they are in the minority ? dwarfs ? the blind ? the deaf ? I mean curse these pests !

 

[longwood50]

10 minutes ago, Benroon said:

Who has asked you to embrace it ? Who has asked you to celebrate it ?

 

Embassies around the world represent the USA abroad.  They always have flown the American Flag which by the way does symbolize something. The stripes represent the original 13 Colonies and the stars represent the 50 states of the Union. The colors of the flag are symbolic as well; red symbolizes hardiness and valor, white symbolizes purity and innocence, and blue represents vigilance, perseverance and justice.

When you give equal standing to a flag representing Gay Pride, yes I say that is not just a gesture but rather a call for all of America and all of he world to not just tolerate the rights of others for same sex but to embrace it and celebrate it. 

Do you see an equivalent flag for heterosexuals which PS represent approximately 95% of the world.  No just the 5%.  As mentioned before.  They do not wish to be treated equally, they wish to have preference and as shown their flag is getting preference which is an open statement by the USA government to both embrace it as a lifestyle and by flying the pride flag celebrate in it. 


https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-to-allow-us-embassies-to-fly-pride-flag-reversing-a-trump-decision-2021-4

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by longwood50

[Benroon]

16 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Embassies around the world represent the USA abroad.  They always have flown the American Flag which by the way does symbolize something. The stripes represent the original 13 Colonies and the stars represent the 50 states of the Union. The colors of the flag are symbolic as well; red symbolizes hardiness and valor, white symbolizes purity and innocence, and blue represents vigilance, perseverance and justice.

When you give equal standing to a flag representing Gay Pride, yes I say that is not just a gesture but rather a call for all of America and all of he world to not just tolerate the rights of others for same sex but to embrace it and celebrate it. 

Do you see an equivalent flag for heterosexuals which PS represent approximately 95% of the world.  No just the 5%.  As mentioned before.  They do not wish to be treated equally, they wish to have preference and as shown their flag is getting preference which is an open statement by the USA government to both embrace it as a lifestyle and by flying the pride flag celebrate in it. 


https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-to-allow-us-embassies-to-fly-pride-flag-reversing-a-trump-decision-2021-4

Give me a break - your first paragraph is just toe curlingly embarrassing

OJ Simpson ? So how did justice go there ? 

Valor ? Hmmm the definition is meeting danger with firmess (don't worry if your intelligence is all over the place !)

Purity and innocence ? not sure where you're going with that ?

So that's the american flag dealt with and it's absurd connotations!

Second paragraph would only make sense to a bigot

I've asked you to provide one single piece of evidence where YOU have been asked to celebrate another persons lifestyle OR actually come up with a rational explanation as to why in your world they should be treated like second class citizens as they are the minority (perhaps you skipped over the minority of the deaf, blind disabled bit) or should they be treated equally but not the LGBT community as you don't approve ?

I'm guessing you are quite advanced in years yes ?

[Stonker]

14 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Embassies around the world represent the USA abroad.  They always have flown the American Flag which by the way does symbolize something. The stripes represent the original 13 Colonies and the stars represent the 50 states of the Union. The colors of the flag are symbolic as well; red symbolizes hardiness and valor, white symbolizes purity and innocence, and blue represents vigilance, perseverance and justice.

When you give equal standing to a flag representing Gay Pride, yes I say that is not just a gesture but rather a call for all of America and all of he world to not just tolerate the rights of others for same sex but to embrace it and celebrate it. 

Do you see an equivalent flag for heterosexuals which PS represent approximately 95% of the world.  No just the 5%.  As mentioned before.  They do not wish to be treated equally, they wish to have preference and as shown their flag is getting preference which is an open statement by the USA government to both embrace it as a lifestyle and by flying the pride flag celebrate in it. 


https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-to-allow-us-embassies-to-fly-pride-flag-reversing-a-trump-decision-2021-4

If that's your argument for having to embrace and celebrate LGBT, you're simply demonstrating your ignorance on all fronts.

First, US embassies worldwide are allowed to fly any flag they like subject to having permission, be the flags American, BLM, LGBT, or "an equivalent flag for heterosexuals" or any other - all they have to do is ask and be given permission.

The previous administration refused permission for the LGBT 'rainbow' flag, while the present one approved it but only on May 17, the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and to keep it on display through Pride Month in June if they want to.

That's for a maximum of a twelfth of the year, so roughly the same as the numbers who are LGBT.

Second, the US aren't  ordering or asking anyone to "embrace" or "celebrate" any flag flown at their embassies, whether the US flag, a rainbow flag, or any other - just to accept and respect them. Any other interpretation is purely your own, nobody else's, including the USA's.

Third, neither same-sex marriage nor civil-partnerships are about an LGBT "lifestyle" in any way, whatever you imagine an LGBT "lifestyle" to be. 

A "lifestyle" is something you choose, while being LGBT is how you're born like being born left-handed.

You're entitled to your own opinion and your own prejudices and bigotry, as we all are, but what you're continually claiming is simply and easily verifiably not correct.

 

 

 

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, Stonker said:

If that's your argument for having to embrace and celebrate LGBT, you're simply demonstrating your ignorance on all fronts.

Stonker,


Please show me "equality" where the world community has months, parades, and events for HETEROSEXUALS  This is "indoctrination" not equality.  As stated I don't care what others do with their lifestyle.  However, I don't approved of "special treatment" don't approve of school teaching, all part of trying to "normalize" that lifestyle.  

A persons sexual preference should be like their sexual organ.  Its fine that you have one, it is even great that you are proud of it, however when you wave it in my face, expect me to revel in its greatness and shove it down my throat, you have gone too far. 

And I would say the same thing if the U.S. embassies were flying the flag of the Catholic Church, the flag of a particular political party, or a pro choice flag.  Its fine to have your beliefs, just don't wave those in my face and try to salute the flag and revel in your beliefs and the USA was wrong in flying the gay flag  giving not equal but "special treatment" to a particular lifestyle. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by longwood50

[Stonker]

54 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Please show me "equality" where the world community has months, parades, and events for HETEROSEXUALS.

The equality is that heterosexuals can have "months, parades and events" if they want to, celebrating whatever they want to, like Mardi Gras in New Orleans or the Notting Hill Carnival.

The option's there if anyone wants it, in just the same way.

If no heterosexuals are interested in having such a month / parade / event then that's hardly a rational reason to stop anyone else having their festival, flag flying and fun.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

 This is "indoctrination" not equality

That's like saying Cruft's Dog Show should be banned because there's no similar event for goldfish, so dog owners are trying to "indoctrinate" everyone!

If you're not interested in dogs just ignore Crufts. If you're not interested in LGBT just ignore it.

Nobody's forcing you to have any interest in either.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

As stated I don't care what others do with their lifestyle

You can state it as much as you want, but very obviously you do!

You're obsessed about it!

... and what's this fixation about an LGBT "lifestyle" ???

Being LGBT isn't a "lifestyle", it's just how you're born.

Is being left-handed a "lifestyle"? ... or having red hair? ... or your ethnicity? 

You choose your lifestyle, you don't choose how you're born !

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

However, I don't approved of "special treatment" don't approve of school teaching, all part of trying to "normalize" that lifestyle

So you don't approve of any minorities getting "special treatment", from disabled access for those who need it to those with autism or special needs, who are blind or deaf, or who aren't accepted because they aren't the same as 'the majority', who aren't the same colour or religion, or who speak with a different accent or have curly hair?

Their lives shouldn't be "normalized" so that they're accepted just like anyone else regardless of any differences?

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

A persons sexual preference should be like their sexual organ.  Its fine that you have one, it is even great that you are proud of it, however when you wave it in my face, expect me to revel in its greatness and shove it down my throat, you have gone too far

But who's waving anything in your face?

Who's expecting you to revel in anything or shoving anything down your throat?

Who's doing this to you???

Are you really that insecure and that incapable of making a personal choice that you're frightened of being "indoctrinated"? Seriously?

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

 

And I would say the same thing if the U.S. embassies were flying the flag of the Catholic Church, the flag of a particular political party, or a pro choice flag.  Its fine to have your beliefs, just don't wave those in my face and try to salute the flag and revel in your beliefs and the USA was wrong in flying the gay flag  giving not equal but "special treatment" to a particular lifestyle. 

 

 I'm sure you would, as you seem absolutely determined to display your ignorance and prejudice, and your intolerance for those who aren't exactly 'like you'.

Being Catholic (or any religion), supporting a particular political party, or pro-choice (or pro-life) are all "beliefs" and choices, as is following a particular "lifestyle".

Nobody's "giving not equal but "special treatment" to a particular lifestyle" as being LGBT isn't a "lifestyle" so that's simply not a  possibility.

No-one's forcing you or anyone else to either take part or to support, attend, enjoy, "embrace" or "celebrate".

In Thailand there are barely any gay parades or 'Pride's', because no-one's really interested and nobody sees anything to either take 'pride' in or to be ashamed of - it's just how you're born.

In other countries the festivities are a major tourist attraction, like the Sydney Mardi Gras / Pride parade. If people want to celebrate it they go (and plenty do), while if they don't they stay away.

That doesn't mean Sydneysiders have all been "indoctrinated" and are all gay as a result !

[gummy]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

The equality is that heterosexuals can have "months, parades and events" if they want to, celebrating whatever they want to, like Mardi Gras in New Orleans or the Notting Hill Carnival.

The option's there if anyone wants it, in just the same way.

If no heterosexuals are interested in having such a month / parade / event then that's hardly a rational reason to stop anyone else having their festival, flag flying and fun.

That's like saying Cruft's Dog Show should be banned because there's no similar event for goldfish, so dog owners are trying to "indoctrinate" everyone!

If you're not interested in dogs just ignore Crufts. If you're not interested in LGBT just ignore it.

Nobody's forcing you to have any interest in either.

You can state it as much as you want, but very obviously you do!

You're obsessed about it!

... and what's this fixation about an LGBT "lifestyle" ???

Being LGBT isn't a "lifestyle", it's just how you're born.

Is being left-handed a "lifestyle"? ... or having red hair? ... or your ethnicity? 

You choose your lifestyle, you don't choose how you're born !

So you don't approve of any minorities getting "special treatment", from disabled access for those who need it to those with autism or special needs, who are blind or deaf, or who aren't accepted because they aren't the same as 'the majority', who aren't the same colour or religion, or who speak with a different accent or have curly hair?

Their lives shouldn't be "normalized" so that they're accepted just like anyone else regardless of any differences?

But who's waving anything in your face?

Who's expecting you to revel in anything or shoving anything down your throat?

Who's doing this to you???

Are you really that insecure and that incapable of making a personal choice that you're frightened of being "indoctrinated"? Seriously?

 I'm sure you would, as you seem absolutely determined to display your ignorance and prejudice, and your intolerance for those who aren't exactly 'like you'.

Being Catholic (or any religion), supporting a particular political party, or pro-choice (or pro-life) are all "beliefs" and choices, as is following a particular "lifestyle".

Nobody's "giving not equal but "special treatment" to a particular lifestyle" as being LGBT isn't a "lifestyle" so that's simply not a  possibility.

No-one's forcing you or anyone else to either take part or to support, attend, enjoy, "embrace" or "celebrate".

In Thailand there are barely any gay parades or 'Pride's', because no-one's really interested and nobody sees anything to either take 'pride' in or to be ashamed of - it's just how you're born.

In other countries the festivities are a major tourist attraction, like the Sydney Mardi Gras / Pride parade. If people want to celebrate it they go (and plenty do), while if they don't they stay away.

That doesn't mean Sydneysiders have all been "indoctrinated" and are all gay as a result !

On a matter of factual information you are totally wrong about your apparent glib statement regarding Goldfish.  If you attempt to be smart by using obtuse comparators then please check your facts first.

https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/international-goldfish-championship#:~:text=China Hosts the First Ever International Goldfish Championship&text=Attracting over 3%2C000 fabulous fish,beauty pageant of its kind.

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, gummy said:

On a matter of factual information you are totally wrong about your apparent glib statement regarding Goldfish.  If you attempt to be smart by using obtuse comparators then please check your facts first.

https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/international-goldfish-championship#:~:text=China Hosts the First Ever International Goldfish Championship&text=Attracting over 3%2C000 fabulous fish,beauty pageant of its kind.

Yes but are the Goldfish hetro or gay?

People want to know.

[gummy]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Yes but are the Goldfish hetro or gay?

People want to know.

Excellent question, I'll email Nemo 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, gummy said:

On a matter of factual information you are totally wrong about your apparent glib statement regarding Goldfish.  If you attempt to be smart by using obtuse comparators then please check your facts first.

https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/international-goldfish-championship#:~:text=China Hosts the First Ever International Goldfish Championship&text=Attracting over 3%2C000 fabulous fish,beauty pageant of its kind.

Well, I don't want to do down minority interests but after checking the facts I think I'll still stick with my view that there's no goldfish show to rival Crufts.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Yes but are the Goldfish hetro or gay?

People want to know.

Well the title of 'World Goldfish Queen' was reportedly open to all genders so presumably some are and some aren't.