SURVEY: Gay Marriage--Good for Thailand or not?

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, it's hard work to take time off from my "heterosexual supremacist", human breeding stud-farm to post here, but for you it's worth it.

 

Obviously it is a personal choice to have children and will always remain so. However, every government in the world recognises that it needs children. From Singapore to Japan to France to the USA all governments attempt to encourage people having children.

 

The reason is simple, things like pensions are a generational contract between the old and the young. The young pay for the pensions of the old, on the understanding that there will be future generations that will in turn pay for their pensions. Without future taxpayers not just pensions, but hospitals, roads, theatres, all those things paid by taxpayers would be impossible.

 

Hence there are tax incentives, benefits and many other ways that governments try to encourage the birth of children.

 

Not because they are "obsessed with breeding humans as if they were lifestock", but because, unlike you, they understand the fundamental economic reality of the societies we live in. You say there are already enough human beings, however, what you don't understand is that in many countries there is a large, ever-growing, contingent of old people who are maintained at taxpayer's expense, and that contingent is growing larger and larger. Whereas the number of children is not growing with the same speed. Pension systems around the world depend on taxpayers who are not being born in sufficient numbers anymore to maintain the growing number of old people.

 

Obviously I am not scapegoating gays for this, because gays are a tiny minority in each country. The point rather is whether gay marriage would be a benefit for a country as a whole. Nobody appears to be able to articulate any such benefit, whereas the cost and disadvantages of gay marriage for heterosexual people are very clear. Now that does not mean, clearly, that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are not a much bigger problem, of course they are.

 

Indeed, to a small degree immigration can and does help in adding taxpayers that are lost by people who won't or can not have children. Why else would Germany take in 1.3 million immigrants in 2015/16? However, immigration does not provide sufficient numbers of new taxpayers.  That is because the demographic change has been happening for decades, every year about 600,000 children are missing to maintain previous standards, and each time this happens the missing children can not be parents and thus the demographic problems gets worse every year. Even taking in 1.3 million migrants over two years is not sufficient to cure this demographic problem. And it is not feasible to incorporate 1.3 million migrants for most countries on a continuous basis. Migrants can never replace children in full.

 

If pointing out realities makes me a "heterosexual supremacist" I guess then so be it.

 

Sorry but your posts come off as anti gay bigotry. Coming from your fake superior perch of big straight dominant man who deems to suggest that gay people aren't worthy of equal civil rights because of actuarial charts. Your rhetoric reminds me of people obsessed with eugenics that inspired fascists globally from Henry Ford to you know who. 

 

 

BTW does Thailand have a problem with birth rates? I assume not. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, brianp0803 said:

Maybe I misunderstand about the reason people get married. I thought marriage was a legal declaration of two peoples’ love and their intent to stay together and take care of each other. That also includes taking care of each other after the death of one of the partners.
Most of the arguments against gay marriage have been used before against interracial marriages. It is amazing the bigotry that once existed that tried to outlaw interracial marriages. But maybe the same people that are against gay marriage are also against interracial marriages. It is the same type of person

 

Marriage is not needed to create future taxpayers. I believe that everybody, married or not, with children receive a tax credit on their income tax. The tax credit does not depend on if you’re married or single or gay or straight.

I feel very sorry for a guy’s wife if he views her only function to him is to create future taxpayers. I feel sorry for his children if his view of them is to pay taxes to support him in his old age. There seems to be no love at all in this attitude.

Its a very sad way to live a life. Born, create children, die(love is not important)

I will ignore the usual misplaced attempts to equate rights for gays with some kind of racial liberation. 

 

However, you are wrong to try and argue that marriage is irrelevant in terms of taxation and children. For example, a couple with dependents may take advantage of one spouse’s dependent care flexible spending account (FSA) that directly lowers their taxable income.

 

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/marriage/7-tax-advantages-of-getting-married/L1XlLCh0m

 

So there are benefits to marriage and having children in terms of taxation.

 

As for you feeling sorry because someone views their wife "solely to create future taxpayers" that's so ludicrous again, I won't bother to go into that. The same about children being viewed only as having to pay taxes. That's just more ludicrous red-herring nonsense.

 

Love is important, but being able to, and having children, is even more important for society as a whole, for the future. Indeed, children really are the reason for love in the first place, a process to faciliate children being born. And it is only on the backs of those people who have children that people who can not or will not have children can enjoy the full array of benefits society offers.

[Jingthing]

I see nothing wrong with tax credits for children. They should be applied equally of course to both gay and straight parents. 

 

BTW lesbian parents are very common. Gay men much less so for obvious reasons. 

 

Marriage equality is a win for the children of gay people as well. 

 

It's bad enough that the obnoxious bigots feel the need to keep gay people down but surely there can be no excuse whatsoever to oppress their children. 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[Logosone]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sorry but your posts come off as anti gst bigotry. Coming from your fake superior perch of big straight dominant man who deems to suggest that gay people aren't worthy of equal civil rights because of actuarial charts. Your rhetoric reminds me of people obsessed with eugenics that inspired fascists globally from Henry Ford to you know who. 

 

 

BTW does Thailand have a problem with birth rates? I assume not. 

Actually Thailand does have a problem with birth rates, like most countries:

 

"Thailand is facing an era of the “second demographic transition” in which the falling of fertility and mortality rates occur simultaneously. The country’s birth rates are now below replacement, causing the labor force to shrink gradually, while population aging rates grow faster."

 

https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jpss/article/view/119341

 

I am not making a judgement call on whether gays "are worthy" of civil rights, all I am saying is that allowing gays to marry automatically results in them being able to claim tax, employment and unemployment benefits that cost heterosexual people hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Therefore one would have to conclude that gay marriage is not in the interest of a country as a whole, even if, admittedly, it is in the interest of a small gay minority.

 

I'm purely looking at this objectively from a hetereosexual perspective. It does not involve any value judgement on gay sex or whether gays are "worthy" of civil rights. I'm just asking "how much will this cost the country, how will the country benefit". For now nobody has been able to articulate any tangible benefit to the country as a whole, as opposed to for the small gay minority. However the cost of gay marriage to the country, ie its taxpayers, is many hundreds of millions of Dollars in tax, employment and unemployment costs.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Actually Thailand does have a problem with birth rates, like most countries:

 

"Thailand is facing an era of the “second demographic transition” in which the falling of fertility and mortality rates occur simultaneously. The country’s birth rates are now below replacement, causing the labor force to shrink gradually, while population aging rates grow faster."

 

https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jpss/article/view/119341

 

I am not making a judgement call on whether gays "are worthy" of civil rights, all I am saying is that allowing gays to marry automatically results in them being able to claim tax, employment and unemployment benefits that cost heterosexual people hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Therefore one would have to conclude that gay marriage is not in the interest of a country as a whole, even if, admittedly, it is in the interest of a small gay minority.

 

I'm purely looking at this objectively from a hetereosexual perspective. It does not involve any value judgement on gay sex or whether gays are "worthy" of civil rights. I'm just asking "how much will this cost the country, how will the country benefit". For now nobody has been able to articulate any tangible benefit to the country as a whole, as opposed to for the small gay minority.

No. 

You are not coming from a heterosexual perspective. 

You are coming from an anti gay bigots perspective. 

Please do not paint all heterosexuals with your bigoted brush. 

You give yourself away many times. 

Such as suggesting that there aren't similarities between racial civil rights movements and the gay one. 

Of course there are! 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. 

You are not coming from a heterosexual perspective. 

You are coming from a bigots perspective. 

 

Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself.

 

Looks like you have a good dose of that yourself. But that's nothing new, when someone loses the argument and has no real arguments they resort to name-calling and insults.

 

I take it as a compliment to the solidity of my case.

 

And I note you again fail to show how gay marriage benefits the country as a whole.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself.

 

Looks like you have a good dose of that yourself.

That's the recent game of right wing extremists. Claim that they are the victims of bigotry by people pushing back against their bigotry. It fools nobody. As you are so obviously aware you are of the dominant majority when it comes to sexual orientation. Thus you can't really be a victim in this context. 

[brianp0803]

If I understand Logosone, Benefits are given to married couples because they produce future tax payers(love and commitment is irrelevant)
 

So,  women past childbearing years are not allowed to get married. Men with vasectomies are not allowed to get married. A man and woman who love each other and want to live together but don’t want children should not be allowed to get married or receive any tax benefits from the marriage.

 

A married couple that does not produce children are not entitled to each others pensions. A married couple that produces no children does not benefit from tax inheritance from the partner.
Unless children are produced, a married couple should be treated as two separate single people in terms of government and taxation benefits. A married couple whose children have died without producing sufficient taxes lose all benefits

Before producing children, it is good if there are two people are in a loving relationship - possibly being married.  Unfortunately, a very high percentage of young children will grow up with divorced parents or dysfunctional families.  But they were likely get jobs and pay taxes to support you in your old age.

[brianp0803]

Instead of looking at the cost of giving the same benefits to gay married people straight married people, maybe look at the cost of benefits given to straight married couples that produced no future taxpayers.
 

if the wife dies, I believe the husband does not have to pay huge inheritance tax. But if they produce no children, then the husband should have to pay the same inheritance tax as a gay couple would pay.

 

If one partner died, the other partner should not be able to collect the other partners pension unless they produce future tax payers.

This would be more equal I assume you feel this would be fair

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

If I understand Logosone, Benefits are given to married couples because they produce future tax payers(love and commitment is irrelevant)
 

So,  women past childbearing years are not allowed to get married. Men with vasectomies are not allowed to get married. A man and woman who love each other and want to live together but don’t want children should not be allowed to get married or receive any tax benefits from the marriage.

 

A married couple that does not produce children are not entitled to each others pensions. A married couple that produces no children does not benefit from tax inheritance from the partner.
Unless children are produced, a married couple should be treated as two separate single people in terms of government and taxation benefits. A married couple whose children have died without producing sufficient taxes lose all benefits

Before producing children, it is good if there are two people are in a loving relationship - possibly being married.  Unfortunately, a very high percentage of young children will grow up with divorced parents or dysfunctional families.  But they were likely get jobs and pay taxes to support you in your old age.

He's obviously taking the far right wing anti gay side in the culture wars. 

To such people married straight people just look right regardless of their fertility potential or intentions. 

Conversely same sex couples just look wrong again regardless of their fertility potential or intentions. 

I will acknowledge that gay male couples face great difficulties having any biological connection to potential children. But its easy for women. 

[Logosone]

19 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

If I understand Logosone, Benefits are given to married couples because they produce future tax payers(love and commitment is irrelevant)
 

So,  women past childbearing years are not allowed to get married. Men with vasectomies are not allowed to get married. A man and woman who love each other and want to live together but don’t want children should not be allowed to get married or receive any tax benefits from the marriage.

 

A married couple that does not produce children are not entitled to each others pensions. A married couple that produces no children does not benefit from tax inheritance from the partner.
Unless children are produced, a married couple should be treated as two separate single people in terms of government and taxation benefits. A married couple whose children have died without producing sufficient taxes lose all benefits

Before producing children, it is good if there are two people are in a loving relationship - possibly being married.  Unfortunately, a very high percentage of young children will grow up with divorced parents or dysfunctional families.  But they were likely get jobs and pay taxes to support you in your old age.

 

I have of course never said that love and commitment are irrelevant. However, clearly it is the case that governments from Singapore to Japan to France and the US aim to provide benefits and tax advantages, and indeed use many other policies, to try and encourage couples to have children.

 

Governments do so because they can calculate if there are enough births to sustain their aging populations in the long run. There are not, there is a shortage of children in most developed countries. Even in Thailand.

 

Furthermore nobody is arguing that women past child-bearing age can not marry, men with vasectomies can not marry, or that women and men who do not want children can not marry. Yet more colourful red herrings. Of course they can marry, however, if we look at whether such marriages benefit the country as a whole, when they do not produce children that can become future taxpayers obviously one has to concede that childless couples are a loss for society as a whole in terms of lost tax revenues. And yet those couples still claim pension. Even if they do not contribute to future generations who will pay for the pensions of those who paid their pensions. So if addressing the question, do childless couples benefit society the answer is clear, in one very key and important aspect they do not.

 

There have already been calls to tax couples who do not have children differently, and whether this will come to pass, as the pension systems struggle more and more to find the future taxpayers to finance pensions, remains to be seen but it is not inconceivable.

 

Before you portray gay and lesbian marriage as especially loving and committed, by the way, you may want to look at the relationship fidelity figure in the gay and lesbian communities. Geneticists have shown a clear correlation between being gay and above average sexual activity, and fidelity in gay relationships is actually rarer than with heterosexual couples. As has been pointed out as well studies show that children without a male and female parent are more likely to be in dysfunctional families and to be disadvantaged themselves.

 

Overall the negative cost of gay marriage is overwhelming, the benefits to society as a whole have still not been listed by anyone here.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

13 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

Instead of looking at the cost of giving the same benefits to gay married people straight married people, maybe look at the cost of benefits given to straight married couples that produced no future taxpayers.
 

if the wife dies, I believe the husband does not have to pay huge inheritance tax. But if they produce no children, then the husband should have to pay the same inheritance tax as a gay couple would pay.

 

If one partner died, the other partner should not be able to collect the other partners pension unless they produce future tax payers.

This would be more equal I assume you feel this would be fair

The problem of course is that we already have gay marriage in many countries. And obviously based on the equality paradigm that permeates democracies once gays are given the right to marry they automatically have to receive all the benefits heterosexual couples who marry receive.

 

Even if a heterosexual married couple has no children they benefit from the favourable inheritance laws given to married couples. Under US federal tax laws, you can leave any amount of money to a spouse without generating estate tax, so this exemption can usually protect the deceased’s estate from taxation until the surviving spouse dies. Irrespective of whether they have children.

 

Therefore the same right would have to be given to gay couples who marry. Of course I would support reserving these inheritance tax advantages only for those for whom they were originally intended, namely married couples who have children, and indeed that would reduce the cost of gay marriage.

 

However gay marriage costs the taxpayer money not just in cases of inheritance. You saw above the US government calculating the cost of giving gay spouses equal rights to federal employee employment benefits amounts to well over 500 million USD. That's just government employees. There are many other instances were married people receive employment, unemployment tax or direct benefits. To address all of these in themselves is a huge, expensive exercise. Would it not be easier and cheaper to simply retain the current position? What is the benefit to society as a whole of gay marriage? Why go through this whole exercise?

[canopy]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

You see it is not equal treatment to allow gays to receive all the tax benefits of marriage, to claim pensions, but then to never have gay couples contribute future taxpayers that will pay for those pension claims. 

I want to hear more about your theory. Are you for or against allowing a woman who has no possibility of ever having children to marry? And what about lesbian marriages who choose to have children by some means?

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by canopy

[brianp0803]

But since the question is about Thailand, what are the benefits that married couples get in Thailand. Are the benefits based on being married or having children? Do the benefits only apply to the Thai person or do they also apply to foreigners married to Thai

 

In terms of immigration,

I think there is a large percentage of foreigners that marry Thai women with no intentions or ability to bear children. But an obvious benefit to the country is bringing in money.

If Thailand treated gay and straight marriage the same, there is a great possibility many foreigners would come to thailand and marry Thai guys and bring substantial income. 
But it would be interesting to see if they treated it as a foreigner marrying a Thai woman (income requirements) or as a foreigner marrying a Thai man (no requirements)

In Thailand, what are the costs and benefits of allowing gay people the same rights as straight people in terms of marriage? This is the question for this topic.

[Cereal]

Gay marriage is great. They don't have kids and I loathe kids. 

 

100% support here!

[Saint Nick]

19 hours ago, Logosone said:

Of course if gay marriage would benefit the country as a whole then you would have to support gay marriage.

 

Looking at the UK, Spain or Germany I don't seen any great benefit to the country as a whole that gay marriage has brought.

 

Has there been any disadvantage to having gay marriage? Of course there are many disadvantages to non-gay taxpayers in allowing gay marriage. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers’ expense. 

 

Indeed in the US the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019.

 

So it costs the non-gay taxpayer hundreds of millions. Why should non-gays subsidise gays?

 

 

 

Wow!

Why should I pay taxes for roads, when I don't even have a drivers license?

Why should non drivers subsidise drivers?

 

[Saint Nick]

17 hours ago, Logosone said:

Well, for a start because gays can not produce children and therefore can not produce future taxpayers.

 

If everyone was gay the whole idea of pensions, the generational contract where the future generations pay for the pension of the old, would be a non-starter. 

 

So from the outset being gay and living a gay lifestyle costs society money because gays can never produce future taxpayers.

 

It would be quite fair to tax gays on that justification alone.

 

However, gay marriage is another universe of subsidising gays with all kinds of benefits, that cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of Dollars.

BUT NOT EVERYONE IS GAY!
Red Herring, all the way!

If my granny had wheels, she'd be a bus!

Edited July 13, 2020 by Saint Nick

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, canopy said:

I want to hear more about your theory. Are you for or against allowing a woman who has no possibility of ever having children to marry? And what about lesbian marriages who choose to have children by some means?

 

A woman who can never have children should be allowed to marry if she wants, obviously. However, couples who can not or choose not to have children and therefore do not contribute to the pool of future taxpayers, but yet claim pension, clearly should be treated differently in terms of taxation, tax benefits and the like. Simply to ensure equal treatment, ie to ensure that those childless couples do not benefit without making the contributions those who have children clearly make, or if they do, they make other contributions to compensate society for their non-contribution in terms of future taxpayers.

 

Lesbians who have children are such a small, exceptional figure it's not even worth discussing. In the big scheme of things they have no influence either way. Most lesbians and most gay men choose not have children. To the extent they do not have children clearly they should suffer the same taxation disadvantages heterosexual couples who do not have children for whatever reason have to accept. If a gay or lesbian couple do decide to have children however I see no reason why they should not have the same benefits heterosexual couples enjoy when they do have children, always provided it is appropriate for those lesbian or gay parents to have children. Whether that is appropriate or desirable is of course another discussion entirely.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

25 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Wow!

Why should I pay taxes for roads, when I don't even have a drivers license?

Why should non drivers subsidise drivers?

 

Because the desirability of having roads in a modern society is very high for the majority of people.

 

What is the desirability of gay marriage for the majority of people?

 

What advantages does gay marriage bring for the country as a whole?

[ikke1959]

I think it is important that Thailand can legalize a relation between two people. man/man woman/woman.. If there is no such a thing, there can be  a lot of problems if one of the two partners is unable to give permission for a treatment in the hospital or even worse when one partner dies. Only the family can do the arrangements than. For foreigners could this be a big problem because gay people normally don't have children and on a certain age the parents are dead too. So if you lived for many years together and yu can not take these important decisions I think it is an extra grieve ......I am satisfied with the bill now, but i agree it would be easier if the law was changed from man and woman in two people

[Logosone]

41 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

BUT NOT EVERYONE IS GAY!
Red Herring, all the way!

If my granny had wheels, she'd be a bus!

And because the very vast majority of people are not gay they are able to keep the pension system afloat. By having children which pay for the pensions of gay people and others who decide not to have children or can not have them.

 

That is not a "red herring" it goes directly to the question of "desirability", in what way does a country benefit from homosexual marriage and how does it benefit from heterosexual marriage.

 

The question, remember, was whether gay marriage is good for a country as a whole. We know that heterosexual marriage is good for a country as a whole, because it leads to children being born who are the future taxpayers that keep systems like pensions alive.

 

But in what way is gay marriage good for a country as a whole?

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[PingRoundTheWorld]

On 7/12/2020 at 11:40 AM, Rancid said:

I have no issues with gay marriage, to each their own, however other groups use it as a stepping stone. Transgender activism generally comes straight after, which would be fine except for the excessive demands being made to completely rewrite society. Additionally the New York Times and other publications are now saying that pedophilia is a condition and not criminal, despite the damage to the victims.

That's exactly how I feel about it. I generally don't oppose "normal" gay marriage, but I think transgenderism (people who actually think they are the opposite gender) is a mental illness that should not be encouraged. Unfortunately in most countries what happens after gay rights are granted is indeed that other groups like transgenders and pedophiles demand "rights" too.

[brianp0803]

How is pension a generational contract? I pay money now and I collect later. My pension is based on how many years I paid into the system and how much per month I paid into the system. Then, when I retire I collect out of the system based on what I paid into the system. Where is the generational contract?

But ability to have babies and getting married or two completely different issues. You can have babies without getting married. You can get married and not have babies. Either way you get the same benefits. Less having babies that produce tax revenue is a requirement for the benefits of being married, and gay people should have the same rights as straight people. Why should gay people be treated as a lower quality a person?

 

But since this question is about Thailand, I’m not sure if that applies.

 

This is a human rights issue and not about money. People now take the attitude if it doesn’t benefit me directly then I don’t want it. Very selfish of people who think this way. 

Should the government continue to pay welfare payments when the grandmother, mother and children are all on welfare. They are unlikely to generate tax paying citizens.
Everything is not about money. Some things are about basic human rights

[brianp0803]

The argument seems to be about the ability to produce future taxpayers is the only benefit to society of marriage. Unless someone produces future taxpayers, they should receive no benefits from the government.
 

Maybe marriage could be changed to a provisional marriage until future taxpayers are produced. Until that time, they receive none of the benefits of being married.
 

If a man on a provisional married to a woman is in a coma, the woman will have no rights to decide on his care because they only have a provisional marriage.

If a man and woman are under provisional marriage and one person dies, then the other person must pay full taxes on inheritance.

No pension can be given to the surviving partner of someone under provisional marriage.
No health insurance from a company can be given to the partner of a provisional marriage.

If the man or the woman are over 45 years old, then they should not be allowed to be married because will be too old to raise a kid to maturity.

Women passed childbearing years, men unable to conceive, and people not wanting babies should not be allowed to marry at all. Since they will receive benefits and not produce taxpayers, they should not be allowed to marry

 

If people feel gay people should not be allowed to be married, then the above conditions seem very reasonable.

[passon]

On 7/12/2020 at 2:22 PM, jvs said:

Of course there should be no gay marriages in Thailand or anywhere in the world. There's the age old saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". 

 

It's illegal to be LGBT in 70 countries, and you could be given the death penalty in 12 countries. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan this death penalty is regularly imposed across the county. You can also be punished by death in some provinces of Somalia and Nigeria.  A further six, have legal or religious provisions that also allow for the death penalty for consensual same-sex sexual acts between adults. In Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the law exists, but there is little evidence LGBT+ are facing the death penalty.

 

Once a country starts accepting this they will start accepting other sick stuff like beastiality, pedophilia, etc. Same same but different.

 

There are a lot of people who come to live in Thailand because fags are not accepted in their countries and they know full and well Thailand has a lot of fags/he-shes/lesbos and it's tolerated here.

It's bigots like you that prove the flaws of humanity.  Using stereotypes like Adam and Steve, or comparing gay marriage to bestiality, pedophilia, or using disgusting terms like fags, he-shes, and lesbos is divisive, hateful, and hostile. Adam and Steve?  Were you a witness to the beginning of time?  Your Bible is a book of manufactured stories.  Your logic, or lack thereof justifies persecution because intolerance exist in other countries.  Your principles are flawed and infinitesimal compared to developed nations that embrace humanity, equality, and freedom.  You seem to be an advocate of suppression, repression, and disenfranchisement.  I'm a gay man and your use of the word fag is offensive, destructive, racist, and bigoted.  You are a small minded individual who lacks compassion, and objectivity.  You should move to one of those 70 countries that you outlined in your bigoted rant that has a more anaclitic society that shares your lack of values.  

Edited July 13, 2020 by passon

[Logosone]

53 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

That's exactly how I feel about it. I generally don't oppose "normal" gay marriage, but I think transgenderism (people who actually think they are the opposite gender) is a mental illness that should not be encouraged. Unfortunately in most countries what happens after gay rights are granted is indeed that other groups like transgenders and pedophiles demand "rights" too.

 

Well, until very recently homosexuality was considered a mental illness, it was only in 1973 when the American Psychological Association removed it from the list of recognised mental illnesses. For a much longer time than it has been considered "normal", as Michel Foucault has shown, homosexuality was considered a mental illness.

 

Personally I would not see homosexual acts as mentally ill as such, anyone can understand the attraction of sex in whatever form between consenting adults, however, if a man develops a romantic fixation on another man that to me has always been a bizarre notion that clearly has disturbing connotations. I certainly do not view that as something to be encouraged.

 

Whether it is a mental illness or not, the question remains how desirable is homosexual marriage for society as a whole.

 

The whole point that gay marriage gives legitimacy to the gay lifestyle and simply makes gay activists even bolder than before is borne out when you look at gay members of parliament in Germany, like Volker Beck, for example openly arguing for sex with underage children. Indeed there were openly gay paedophile journalists in Germany's gay newspaper Tageszeitung calling for the decriminalisation of paedophilia.

 

The Spiegel has done a remarkable piece on the close links of the gay movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia. To this day the Gay and Lesbian association in Germany lauds those who practised paedophilia. The Green Party came under so much pressure they had to appoint a special historian to investigate their links with paedophilia, or rather the links of its homosexual members who advocated for legalising paedophilia.

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

 

This link between the gay movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia is often ignored but it is, as you can read above, a very real link.

 

So concerns about what giving legitimacy to gay marriage would do with regard to other sexual preferences, currently still considered criminal and mental illnesses, are serious concerns.

 

This comes back again to the point, does a country benefit from legalising homosexual marriage?

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[ramrod711]

18 hours ago, Logosone said:

It's completely different, blacks are a race, being gay is a sexual preference. Blacks still produce future taxpayers and therefore benefit society in the long run in terms of taxation. There is absolutely no reason whites should not subsidise blacks in terms of taxation, because blacks will contribute to society in terms of procreating and making future taxpayers. However, gays, do not procreate, do not create taxpayers. So, the long-term functioning of society, pension systems and such, would be impossible if everyone were gay. From a tax perspective, being gay is not something to be encouraged, subsidised or legitimised. 

 

That does not apply to blacks.

 

 

Safe to say, I think, women have babies, stay home raise babies, government pays baby bonus in many countries. Gay marriage, both parties generally work at a salary that is (sadly) higher than average female workers. Higher income equals higher taxes with no deductions for dependent's. All that aside, people should be happy if they can and if people will let them. I have former friends who think mixed race marriages are wrong, that's why they're former friends. Same goes for people who criticize my brother for choosing a lifestyle that works for him. 

[Sailboat]

Yes, even the mentally ill should be allowed to have anal sex without persecution and of course raise children. 

Abortion should be extended to age 17, with the communities right to choose. The right to deny the free speech of anyone that triggers us/liberals/democrats in anyway.

Progressivism is wonderful and if you don't agree we will destroy you, how dare you!!! 

 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, brianp0803 said:

How is pension a generational contract? I pay money now and I collect later. My pension is based on how many years I paid into the system and how much per month I paid into the system. Then, when I retire I collect out of the system based on what I paid into the system. Where is the generational contract?

But ability to have babies and getting married or two completely different issues. You can have babies without getting married. You can get married and not have babies. Either way you get the same benefits. Less having babies that produce tax revenue is a requirement for the benefits of being married, and gay people should have the same rights as straight people. Why should gay people be treated as a lower quality a person?

 

But since this question is about Thailand, I’m not sure if that applies.

 

This is a human rights issue and not about money. People now take the attitude if it doesn’t benefit me directly then I don’t want it. Very selfish of people who think this way. 

Should the government continue to pay welfare payments when the grandmother, mother and children are all on welfare. They are unlikely to generate tax paying citizens.
Everything is not about money. Some things are about basic human rights

Yes, a pension system is a generational contract.  Because what you pay in is not equal to what you collect later. Your pension claims are greater than what you actually paid in. It has been the case for some time that direct contributions paid in no longer suffice to pay out pension claims. That is why governments have to go to the capital markets and borrow to finance pension claims. Of course this government borrowing is paid by the taxpayers.

 

Gay people should not be treated as a "lower quality person" rather gay people should suffer the same tax disadvantages that childless couples suffer.

 

This is very much a financial issue about money, because your "human rights" issue has implications that run into the billions for taxpayers worldwide. Money that has to be paid by heterosexual taxpayers. Surely it is more selfish for gays to demand that heterosexuals pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefits of gay married couples?

 

The grandmother, mother and children are not the issue, obviously a society has to look after its elderly, women and children. But do we have to give special benefits to homosexuals? Why?

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

On 7/12/2020 at 2:40 PM, Rancid said:

I have no issues with gay marriage, to each their own, however other groups use it as a stepping stone. Transgender activism generally comes straight after, which would be fine except for the excessive demands being made to completely rewrite society. Additionally the New York Times and other publications are now saying that pedophilia is a condition and not criminal, despite the damage to the victims.

That's exactly how I feel about it. I generally don't oppose "normal" gay marriage, but I think transgenderism (people who actually think they are the opposite gender) is a mental illness that should not be encouraged. Unfortunately in most countries what happens after gay rights are granted is indeed that other groups like transgenders and pedophiles demand "rights" too.

Wow, conflating paedophillia and marriage equality, says a lot

Most males (in my experience) who are convicted of crimes against children ( I worked in the Corrective Services area for some time) identify as "straight" whether the victim/s is male or female.

Please do not conflate two entirely separate issues.