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

[BobBKK]

I voted civil partnership as I think that is entirely fair and live and let live. Marriage and kids etc. I am not so sure on (and that goes for gays and straights lol). 

[RJRS1301]

6 minutes ago, Sailboat said:

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!!! 

 

You are aware that not all same sex attracted males have anal sex ?

You are aware that many heterosexual people also indulge in anal sex?

You are aware that not all men who have anal sex are same sex attracted?

What does the right to termination have to do with Marriage Equality ?

 

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

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.

 

Well there has been a historic and clear link between the gay movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia.

 

The Spiegel has uncovered this link in an investigative feature, you can read here:

 

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

 

The alliance between the gay movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia is of course largely ignored by those supporting the gay agenda. However it is a very real, well documented historical fact.

 

So it is legitimate to ask, what is the effect of giving legitimacy to the gay lifestyle by legalising gay marriage, in terms of those sexual preferences still considered mental illnesses or criminal.

 

Again, how does a country benefit by legalising gay marriage? What are the consequences?

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

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?

Not for me!

What do I care about "the majority of people"?

[RichardColeman]

6 hours ago, Skallywag said:

7.3 Billion people on a planet that can reasonably sustain maybe 3 Billion people has caused starvation, malnutrition, poverty, environmental degradation and other stresses that make procreation unnecessary for the next several generations. IMO of course 

Sounds like a promotional push for greater homosexuality to reduce the planetary population

[jvs]

33 minutes ago, passon said:

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.  

You quoted some one else but my name is above this.It was something i quoted before,please do not think i wrote that homophobic drivel.

[Saint Nick]

16 minutes ago, Sailboat said:

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!!! 

 

Under what rock did you crawl out of?

Mental Illness (or the lack thereof) has no connection to gay marriage, anal sex is performed by many heterosexual couples and what does that have to do with raising children?

Are you having your clean, missionary,heterosexual  sex infront of your children?

And the rest of your post is even more incoherent drivel!

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Funny, that's how I feel when I hear people talk of a man marrying another man, but I guess that's not satire either.

 

Anyway, I was referring to child tax credit, and other tax and social benefit payouts in other countries that are only available to people with children. Clearly not all salary, health care, or pension benefits are related to having children, but some tax and social benefits exist only for people with children. This is common practice around the world. Presumably those would have to be abolished for full equal treatment, so that gays and lesbians are not disadvantaged because they can never procreate?

 

It is of course the case that many employment, health care and pension benefits are only available to married partners. Hence 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. That's just federal government employees.

 

https://images.procon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/cbo-same-sex-benefits.pdf

 

So the cost of extending marriage rights to gays around the world easily runs into billions of Dollars. 

 

Money that has to be paid by heterosexual taxpayers in all those countries that allow marriage for homosexuals. 

 

 

     Rather reckless to use the US experience with gay marriage and then decide, based on it, that gay marriage will cost billions around the World.  Some studies have shown that gay marriage has actually boosted some economies, for example the UK.  But, whether it's a net gain or loss, it's not really relevant to the question as to whether a gay person should have the same rights as a straight person.  Hard to believe that in 2020 it should even be up for debate. 

     I don't think straight married couples in the US lost any of their benefits when gay marriage was made legal.  Instead, gay couples could now legally marry and also receive those same benefits.  It's interesting that you always make the argument that heterosexuals will now be paying taxes for married gays to now have some of the same benefits heterosexual married couples have always enjoyed--and ignore that gays have been paying taxes all the many past years to provide these benefits to straights that they never received themselves.   

     You've made a point of the monetary costs being a big issue for you so let's look at your example.  The increased costs in the US for federal gay married couples that you have mentioned twice stem largely from the costs of allowing gay spouses to be added to the federal health plan.  If you check the link you sent, of the 596 million dollar figure, 590 million is for health care.  Of the 302 million, 266 million is for health care.  And, remember, the figures are for 10 years.  Uncle Sam has been known to spend more than that for one space hammer.  Or was it a can opener? 

     Single gay and straight federal workers are already on the health plan. Heterosexual spouses and children are also already on the plan.  So, most of the added costs are for now including the one segment that has been denied the health benefit--gay spouses.  I think you would agree a healthy citizenry is important.  Just as an aside, many countries already have national health care plans that cover all their citizens so making gay marriage legal in those countries would likely cost much less than the US.  I doubt Thailand will be paying your 'billions' in extra expenses if it allows civil unions--more likely it will be making a ton of money instead with gays celebrating their unions. 

     Staying with the US, the main reason gay marriage was made legal by the Supreme Court was the many instances, like the above, of gay couples being denied the same benefits that straight married couples received.  Basically, they were not being treated equally under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court said that was wrong and I gotta agree.  

[passon]

15 minutes ago, Logosone 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.

You generally oppose "normal" gay marriage?  I am always amazed by heterosexuals who seem to think they have some exclusive right to marriage.  That love is only predicated by the opposite sex and should only be displayed or recognized as normal within a practicing society.  That is extremely pretentious on your part or the part of anyone who defines normal to be by their own set of rules.  You think being transgender is a mental illness?  You could not be more wrong.  Actually, your analogy of mental illness is the principle contributing factor of gender dysphoria.

Referencing the diagnostic criteria of DSM-5 [diagnostic criteria depression], or the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, it provides for one overreaching diagnosis of gender dysphoria with separate criteria for children and for addesscents, and adults.  Gender dysphoria refers to the conflict and stress resulting from identifying with opposite gender you were not born into.  In other words, the way we [society] treats transgenders by shunning them and making them fell less than the whole of society and therefore identifying them as suffering from a mental illness all contribute to gender dysphoria.   

Your thinking is not the solution, or consistent with an educated prognosis, it is in fact the problem developed with uninformed thinking and prejudicial conclusions.

[Saint Nick]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well there has been a historic and clear link between the gay movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia.

 

The Spiegel has uncovered this link in an investigative feature, you can read here:

 

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

 

The alliance between the gay movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia is of course largely ignored by those supporting the gay agenda. However it is a very real, well documented historical fact.

 

So it is legitimate to ask, what is the effect of giving legitimacy to the gay lifestyle by legalising gay marriage, in terms of those sexual preferences still considered mental illnesses or criminal.

 

Again, how does a country benefit by legalising gay marriage? What are the consequences?

Jesus man...just say, what you want to say and we are done with it!

There is no whatsoever connection between pdeophilia and homosexuality, just because some homesexuals are also pedophiles!

There is no "gay lifestyle" and it sure is has nothing to do with mental illness or criminality- at least not more or less, than with a "heterosexual lifestyle"!

[Saint Nick]

Homosexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals...whatever...are human beings and citizens and should therefore have all human rights and civil rights!

Not that hard, really!

[Logosone]

3 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Jesus man...just say, what you want to say and we are done with it!

There is no whatsoever connection between pdeophilia and homosexuality, just because some homesexuals are also pedophiles!

There is no "gay lifestyle" and it sure is has nothing to do with mental illness or criminality- at least not more or less, than with a "heterosexual lifestyle"!

There is a very clear and documented connection between the gay rights movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia. You may read about it here:

 

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

 

Gay politicians are on record for arguing in favour of legalising paedophilia.

 

How can you say there is no link?

 

 

[passon]

12 minutes ago, jvs said:

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.  

Was it from a previous post?  I only viewed it under your name. I would be more than happy to send my thoughts their way.  Glad to know it wasn't you and that you see their comments as, "drivel."  I have dealt with people who think like this for well over 40 years.  It's very personal for me.  

[Sailboat]

2 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Homosexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals...whatever...are human beings and citizens and should therefore have all human rights and civil rights!

Not that hard, really!

I agree murderers, rapist, pedophiles, progressives are all humans.

[Saint Nick]

3 minutes ago, Logosone said:

There is a very clear and documented connection between the gay rights movement and the movement to legalise paedophilia. You may read about it here:

 

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

 

Gay politicians are on record for arguing in favour of legalising paedophilia.

 

How can you say there is no link?

 

 

Heterosexual people, politicians etc also have been arguing for the legalisation of pedophilia!

There are sick people everywhere and they come from all walks of society!

Coraloation is is not causation and context matters!

 

 

[rupert the bear]

gay people must be allowed to marry,its their right,many countries recognise it,paedophilia,,,,,, what??but you can apply that to straight marriage by the same criteria.theres a large population of gay and also trans people here why discriminate?makes no sense

[Saint Nick]

2 minutes ago, Sailboat said:

I agree murderers, rapist, pedophiles, progressives are all humans.

I hope, you are trying to be funny...which really needs some practizing on your side!

 

[stouricks]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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

So then, why should non-married people subsidize married couples?

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, newnative said:

     Rather reckless to use the US experience with gay marriage and then decide, based on it, that gay marriage will cost billions around the World.  Some studies have shown that gay marriage has actually boosted some economies, for example the UK.  But, whether it's a net gain or loss, it's not really relevant to the question as to whether a gay person should have the same rights as a straight person.  Hard to believe that in 2020 it should even be up for debate. 

     I don't think straight married couples in the US lost any of their benefits when gay marriage was made legal.  Instead, gay couples could now legally marry and also receive those same benefits.  It's interesting that you always make the argument that heterosexuals will now be paying taxes for married gays to now have some of the same benefits heterosexual married couples have always enjoyed--and ignore that gays have been paying taxes all the many past years to provide these benefits to straights that they never received themselves.   

     You've made a point of the monetary costs being a big issue for you so let's look at your example.  The increased costs in the US for federal gay married couples that you have mentioned twice stem largely from the costs of allowing gay spouses to be added to the federal health plan.  If you check the link you sent, of the 596 million dollar figure, 590 million is for health care.  Of the 302 million, 266 million is for health care.  And, remember, the figures are for 10 years.  Uncle Sam has been known to spend more than that for one space hammer.  Or was it a can opener? 

     Single gay and straight federal workers are already on the health plan. Heterosexual spouses and children are also already on the plan.  So, most of the added costs are for now including the one segment that has been denied the health benefit--gay spouses.  I think you would agree a healthy citizenry is important.  Just as an aside, many countries already have national health care plans that cover all their citizens so making gay marriage legal in those countries would likely cost much less than the US.  I doubt Thailand will be paying your 'billions' in extra expenses if it allows civil unions--more likely it will be making a ton of money instead with gays celebrating their unions. 

     Staying with the US, the main reason gay marriage was made legal by the Supreme Court was the many instances, like the above, of gay couples being denied the same benefits that straight married couples received.  Basically, they were not being treated equally under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court said that was wrong and I gotta agree.  

The US investigation into the costs of gay marriage was confined to, as you say, largely government employment benefits for gay spouses of government employees, especially health benefits. That alone was in total, close to 900 million US Dollars of potential additional cost.

 

That calculation did not take into account the cost of the change itself, the cost of the various inheritance tax, lower tax bracket, tax shelter benefits, IRA account benefits, in short all the many benefits hitherto available to married couples only which at a stroke became available to gay marriages.

 

I am aware that some UK ministers have highlighted the 18 million pounds or so they believed gay marriages would contribute in marriage fees, flowers, receptions and the like, but that is of course a mickey mouse calculation. It does not take into account the above mentioned adverse tax consequences, largely similar in the UK.

 

Nor do any of the calculation take into account the fact that gay marriages will never produce future taxpayers. 

 

Again, due to this fact gay marriages will always be a net loss for society, despite the taxes that gays pay. They do not produce future taxpayers. They claim pension, but do not contribute to the pool of future taxpayers that support the pensions.

 

Against the 18 million pounds the UK claimed it would make in flowers, receptions and marriage fees, you can set the German experience where the Spousal "splitting" tax advantages granted to gay married partners alone cost the German taxpayers 286 million Euro. That is just for one single taxation benefit. Again, it does not account for the lack of future taxpayers gay marriage necessarily involves.

 

Of course you can relativise these figures by pointing to defense expenditure, but it is a lot of money that countries have to spend worlwide to introduce and maintain gay marriage. Certainly more than 1 Billion Dollars globally, most likely a lot more.

 

Whether Thailand would see a boom of gay marriage feasts remains to be seen, there are already so many gay people in Thailand, expats I mean, that it is hard to imagine more coming, and those that are there would they care about marriage at all, about getting married? Hard to say.

[toofarnorth]

On 7/12/2020 at 3:29 PM, Pilotman said:

are you Welsh? 

Once more from 'Straw Dogs '.   Some men like women , and some men like boys , but I like big fluffy things that make a bah noise '.

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, stouricks said:

So then, why should non-married people subsidize married couples?

Because marriage between a male and a female is the foundation of the family. And without children any society, state, culture or country would die.

 

All the benefits you enjoy, hospitals, pensions, roads, theatres, are only possible because  heterosexual people produce children, the normal outcome of marriage. 

 

Without children all of those benefits would be impossible to finance.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 3:12 PM, bbi1 said:

Exactly spot on with that comment.

Absolute rubbish, if you see how many kids get abused by male and female relationships. Then there is the fact that loads of these relationships fail and they end up with only a male or a female anyhow. BTW god doesn't exist and the bible is full of hate and other BS: http://godisimaginary.com/

 

[chainarong]

On 7/12/2020 at 11:48 AM, Card said:

Civil partnerships are a sop and merely a stepping stone to full marriage equality. Many countries in the world have already demonstrated that gay marriage does not lead to the end of societies or hell on earth. Equality through full marriage for gays is the only just outcome unless straight couples are also limited to civil partnerships.

 

I might add that gay marriage should never be put to a referendum. It should be enacted as a human right. The casual use of referenda for gay marriage or legalising of homosexuality can be used by despotic governments to legitimise their prejudices through populism and electoral fraud.

And a referendum divides a country, a good example Ireland and Australia , I didn't think there was so much hate in Australia.

 

[stouricks]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Because marriage between a male and a female is the foundation of the family. And without children any society, state, culture or country would die.

 

All the benefits you enjoy, hospitals, pensions, roads, theatres, are only possible because  heterosexual people produce children, the normal outcome of marriage. 

 

Without children all of those benefits would be impossible to finance.

I don't know the exact percentage but many many children are born 'outside marriage' these days, with many being unwanted mistakes.

The benefits paid out to 'children', at least by the UK government, if stopped, would mean far more hospitals, roads, theatres etc for ME to use!   PML

Edited July 13, 2020 by stouricks

[pineapple01]

1 minute ago, stouricks said:

I don't know the exact percentage but many many children are born 'outside marriage' these days.

The benefits paid out to 'children', at least by the UK government, if stopped, would mean far more hospitals, roads, theatres etc for ME to enjoy!   PML

Enjoy a Hospital.?  Hi, I Just popped in for a Jolly Old Transplant.

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, stouricks said:

I don't know the exact percentage but many many children are born 'outside marriage' these days, with many being unwanted mistakes.

The benefits paid out to 'children', at least by the UK government, if stopped, would mean far more hospitals, roads, theatres etc for ME to enjoy!   PML

Well, the figures vary from country to country, as you would expect.

 

In the US about 40%, in Germany 35%, Australia 35%, UK about 48%.

 

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide

 

Every child of course, whether born in our outside wedlock, is a blessing in terms of taxation for the state.

 

Benefits have to paid out to encourage people to have children, because without those benefits women would have even less children and the number of children is already too small to maintain the pension systems in most countries.

 

So whilst you would in the short term perhaps enjoy more theatres, in the long run all theatres would have to close if your anti-family policies were to be adopted. Hence every government from Singapore to Japan to France to the USA tries to provide incentives for having children.

Edited July 13, 2020 by Logosone

[stouricks]

3 minutes ago, pineapple01 said:

Enjoy a Hospital.?  Hi, I Just popped in for a Jolly Old Transplant.

Sorry, bad wording on my behalf. Hospitals and roads to USE, theatres to ENJOY. 

[stouricks]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Well, the figures vary from country to country, as you would expect.

 

In the US about 40%, in Germany 35%, Australia 35%, UK about 48%.

 

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide

 

Every child of course, whether born in our outside wedlock, is a blessing in terms of taxation for the state.

 

Benefits have to paid out to encourage people to have children, because without those benefits women would have even less children and the number of children is already too small to maintain the pension systems in most countries.

 

So whilst you would in the short term perhaps enjoy more theatres, in the long run all theatres would have to close if your anti-family policies were to be adopted. Hence every government from Singapore to Japan to France to the USA tries to provide incentives for having children.

I ain't got a long run left!   PML

[Logosone]

A 2012 study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships suffered more difficulties in life (including sexual abuse and unemployment in later life) than children raised by “intact biological famil[ies].” 

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610

 

Again, we have to ask, how does a country as a whole benefit from gay marriage?

[Yinn]

7 hours ago, stouricks said:

Why do you only show Gay MEN getting married. Do Gay WOMEN no do the same?

Because for show thai and farang. For the member.

 

 

The thai woman like other Thai woman. 

Because more beautiful.

 

ok, here...