national

13 same-sex couples file suits for marriage equality in Japan

87 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

87 Comments
Login to comment

If this is about equal rights, I’m happy to support some type of civil union that allows gay couples the same rights as married couples.

But I don’t want to be called a marriage. That’s reserved for heterosexual couples.

-23 ( +11 / -34 )

In Japan, at least one in 11 people identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to a survey conducted last October by advertising giant Dentsu Inc., covering 60,000 people aged between 20 and 59 nationwide

One in 11 ???? Really?? (No judgement here but honestly, surprised with the number).

5 ( +8 / -3 )

But I don’t want to be called a marriage.

Why not? What difference does it make to your life?

15 ( +23 / -8 )

Ganbatte!

8 ( +13 / -5 )

@Bugle Boy

But I don’t want to be called a marriage.

Don't worry. No one's suggesting calling it marriage.

It's going to be called kekkon.

12 ( +18 / -6 )

Good luck to them ! Whatever the result, at least the debate will be inevitable.

@fishy

I was surprised too, but I checked :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

The numbers differ from countries obviously, but above 5% of the population seems common.

1 in 11 in Japan must be like 7-8% I guess, so the number is pretty normal.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

When they say 1 in 11 that simply means the amount of people that actually responded out of the people they surveyed. This does not represent the actual number and there are still some people who are uncomfortable with coming out.

I seriously can’t understand why so many are against same sex marriages. A loving family is a loving family. Doesn’t matter what differences or similarities there are. Also, it makes sense economically. Also, happy people are more motivated.

As for the couples who are bi racial, you risk alienating them and pushing people, who can be very productive in an economy, away. This would only further the current plight they have with a shrinking population and workforce.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

The numbers differ from countries obviously, but above 5% of the population seems common.

1 in 11 in Japan must be like 7-8% I guess, so the number is pretty normal.

Thanks Bintaro!!!!!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Good luck to these couples! I hope they'll be able to make a change and the government will realize that homosexual couples are just as deserving as any other.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

I seriously can’t understand why so many are against same sex marriages

Those who are against it, or the word ‘marriage’ being used, haven’t really offered any reasons.

I think it may be in the package they swallowed whole. I can only assume they haven’t really given it much thought.

I suppose you can’t have time for everything.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

The others who are against it, or the word ‘marriage’ being used, haven’t really offered any reason

Reason has already been given. At least for me, I don’t want the word “marriage“ - or its Japanese equivalent - to be used because that represents the union between a man and a woman.

The LGBT people are demanding “equal rights“. While I can support that, I cannot support redefining words.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I wish them every success. Marriage is for people in love and who want to commit to staying together before society. They should be recognized and fully brought into that society. After that, it is not your business or mine. Very nice photo, by the way. Quite like the double-O icon.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

One in 11 ???? Really?? (No judgement here but honestly, surprised with the number).

Of course that number is surprising! It’s a totally made up number. If it weren’t, there would be sources.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Reason has already been given. At least for me, I don’t want the word “marriage“ - or its Japanese equivalent - to be used because that represents the union between a man and a woman.

According to whom and why should that definition be fixed?

Laws and definitions change constantly.

The reason you gave needs explanation.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

According to whom and why should that definition be fixed? 

Laws and definitions change constantly. 

The reason you gave needs explanation.

If language and words do not have definitions then we have chaos. I’m not a big fan of chaos. How about you?

You need to explain why you can unilaterally change the definition of a word that millions of people have used for thousands of years. Who are you to change the meaning of words that I use?

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

To each his own.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

My partner and I have been together for 22 years (we met in junior high school). We'd really like to get married. I mean, really married, not just a "partnership". We've lasted longer than several of our straight friend couples.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

My partner and I have been together for 22 years (we met in junior high school). We'd really like to get married. I mean, really married, not just a "partnership". We've lasted longer than several of our straight friend couples.

Thats great! 22 years is a real accomplishment! May I ask - why do you want to be married?

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

You need to explain why you can unilaterally change the definition of a word that millions of people have used for thousands of years. Who are you to change the meaning of words that I use?

I dunno, the majority of those under 65? I guess it was unilaterally redefined in the 30 odd countries performing same sex marriage. Have you ever just thought that maybe you're an old man (at least in spirit) screaming at kids to get off his lawn? Or that you simply have a subjective and dated view of the matter.

And nice attempt to fixate on the term property rather than what the word signified at the time. And it wasn't luggage or a hammer. It was the only possible term to describe blacks.

I cannot support redefining words.

What a ridiculous statement. Text was only a noun until a few years ago. It's now in Merriam-Webster as a verb as well. How will we ever carry on!?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The LGBT people are demanding “equal rights“. While I can support that, I cannot support redefining words.

Words are redefined in English ALL the time. Hell are you "gay?" Used to have a TOTALLY different meaning, if you didnt know. How about "fag?" Could you spare one? I still run out of smokes every now and then, and my fire needs relighting too!

You are emotionally attached to a word. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over the word, and guess what?

You will be enlightened!

12 ( +16 / -4 )

You need to explain why you can unilaterally change the definition of a word that millions of people have used for thousands of years. Who are you to change the meaning of words that I use?

I dunno, the majority of those under 65? I guess it was unilaterally redefined in the 30 odd countries performing same sex marriage. Have you ever just thought that maybe you're an old man (at least in spirit) screaming at kids to get off his lawn? Or that you simply have a subjective and dated view of the matter.

So it's okay to write someone off because they are old? Cool. Why do you think I'm old? And do you think all young people think the way you do?

We are discussing whether or not the definition of words change. Don't change the subject to slavery.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

I support marriage equality, which is why I do not support same-sex marriage since it has nothing to do with marriage ((one man (husband), one woman (wife), for one lifetime)) nor equality (the right of marriage is already shared by all citizens equally).

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Hello Bugle-Boy,

You are asking questions that I asked as well. I can distinctly remember saying, why can't they just have a recognized union, but not use the word marriage. I was standing in the kitchen of my parents home. Must have been about 1988. Since then my thoughts have evolved. Bit by bit. The same way that language evolves.

My mother wouldn't recognize a marriage between her neice and a man because they got married in the United, rather than Catholic church in the mid 80's. She eventually came around to that. She was even coming around to the possibility of a city-hall union being a marriage by the 10th year of my engagement. (Neither of us interested in organized religions or willing to be married in a church.) Now that she's no longer with us, my nieces and nephews are planning all sorts of weddings, after years of living with their partners, common law. Wedding in a barn, wedding on a beach, married by a family friend, etc.. Not a priest in site. No worries anymore about offending Grandma's sense of propriety or having her sit at home in a grumble.

Saying only mixed-gender couples marriages are real marriages diminishes the committment, the reality of the marriages of same-gender couples.

I'm curious as to how you define marriage. What sets it apart from, say, common-law marriages?

For me the main difference is the paperwork. When you marry you legally create new family connections. Those connections have legal implications. Only immediate family can do such and such. Visit in the ICU. Get a spouse visa. Inherit a shared home /inherit without paying taxes, etc. (lots of variation by jurisdiction).

I think if you keep openly asking questions and people like gokai_wo_maneku continue to reply, through dialogue your ideas might well continue to evolve as well. (I say continue, because if you thought back to what your opinions were in 1989, I'm thinking you'll probably see there's already been some drift.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Japan, a country so associated with development and the latest tech, sure are faaar behind on the human side of things. And it's the dumbest and simplest issues of all. Just legalize it. Literally nothing in your lives will be affected, except some others may be more equal to you.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

I love my partner but I believe all people should be allowed to suffer through marriage just like everyone else.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Words are redefined in English ALL the time. Hell are you "gay?" Used to have a TOTALLY different meaning, if you didnt know. How about "fag?" Could you spare one? I still run out of smokes every now and then, and my fire needs relighting too!

I'm well aware of these words and how they used to be used. I am aware that the meaning has changed. Guess what! I'm against that. Surprised?

You are emotionally attached to a word. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over the word, and guess what?

You will be enlightened!

Gotta get woke, eh? I'm not emotionally attached to any word. You could argue that I am LOGICALLY attached to some words.

Taj: I'm curious as to how you define marriage. What sets it apart from, say, common-law marriages?

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, as recognized by the state. Common-law marriage is where a couple is legally considered married, without that couple having formally registered their relation. So the difference sounds like a matter of registration.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Words are redefined in English ALL the time. Hell are you "gay?" Used to have a TOTALLY different meaning, if you didnt know.

I believe that the modern meaning of the word "gay" was derived in the late 1970's standing for Good As You.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Best of luck...win win situation.

I will take the pragmatic point of view. If 2 people commit to each other and helping each other during both good times and tough times it is less of a burden for society as a whole. If these people are happy it is better for society as a whole.

Don't see the downside of this...

Good luck folks!!!!

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I will take the pragmatic point of view. If 2 people commit to each other and helping each other during both good times and tough times it is less of a burden for society as a whole. If these people are happy it is better for society as a whole.

Don't see the downside of this...

Good luck folks!!!!

Agree! Have a civil union! Get tax breaks or whatever else married couples get!

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Having their claim written in English clearly speaks that they have no hope from Japan and are seeking help from abroad.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I don't see any issue with this type of Marriage in Japan - there's no Religious objection. Though it's going to cause one heck of a mess with the paperwork and ancient Computer systems when you try to register. Maybe that's the reason for the Governments dragging of feet over this matter ?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Marriage is marriage, as simple as that.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

I just don't want even a second to be thought I am gay since I got married with a defined word. Is that a good reason ?

Then, I am democratic and if majority of people want gay lesbian relationships to be valued as a next good step, so be it.

One shall fight for his rights.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

@ Jonathan Prin

I just don't want even a second to be thought I am gay since I got married with a defined word. Is that a good reason ?

No!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Amir: I believe all people should be allowed to suffer through marriage just like everyone else.

Hee hee!

Akie: Marriage is marriage, as simple as that.

Not in Japan and a lot of other countries.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If this is about equal rights.....

But I don’t want to be called a marriage. That’s reserved for heterosexual couples.

Then it's not equal is it!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

I know a lawyer in the US who, even though he tries to appear as a staunch Mormon, was pretty happy when same-sex marriages were legalized. Said something like gay couples are unstable, and the jae firms are going to make a killing on gay divorces....

I guess if it's for money, it's okay...?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

*law, not "jae"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Marriage is either something particular or it is not. Supporters of marriage hold to the former notion. Others to the latter, i.e. marriage is not anything in particular and is merely defined in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions.

But is the latter notion true?

Did governments simply create laws to protect that which already existed, marriage, or did governments create marriage through arbitrary laws?

We all know the answer.

Therefore, governments cannot ultimately redefine marriage because they did not create marriage. They can only damage this vital institution by interfering with it through attempts at redefinition.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Why you think these people should be denied the same rights you have is yet to be explained.

No one is being denied any rights. The rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are already shared by all citizens equally.

The same argument was made about allowing marriage between different races. 

??? I am sorry but I do not understand your point.

Laws keeping different ethnicities from marrying were on the wrong side of history because they kept a man and woman apart. Marriage is on the right side of history because the two sexes come together and begins a two-person family, the building block of society.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Everybody is a right to pursue happiness, as long as not harming other people. Why do people try to interfere and force their own belief on other people's life? It is just a start of hatred and violence. Ignorance causes fear, fear causes hatred, and hatred causes violence.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Bugle Boy of Company

"But I don’t want to be called a marriage. That’s reserved for heterosexual couples."

Taj put it very well, but I think you need to get over yourself and mature a little.

Everything evolves and changes, you can't stop the tide. Nor should you deny some people the privelidges that you afford.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

For what it's worth, marriage is a wonderful thing between two people. And that's regardless of sexual orientation. Government officials here are close minded and ignorant. God forbid two people should love each other, regardless of sex! Obviously these officials don't know what love is! To deny people who love each other the right to marry, is abhorrent. There should be no restrictions between consenting adults! Someday this pathetic old boy government will be gone and Japan can move forward from the dark ages!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Another publicity event based upon idealized personal issues which disrupts the social and political environment in Japan. The use of the media and public sentiment to change a social and legal system may be effective in a narrow sense to satisfy personal needs and priorities, but the total effect on a very closed and tradition oriented country where discreet and formal protocol is a social necessity can have results and effects that may not be beneficial for the future of people relationships within Japan.

It will certainly affect the legal issues currently in question as to "family responsibility" for "individual" action by a member of that group. (For example: The rail system still charges the family of a "suicide" victim for the cost and loss of revenue because of that act.)

As in any country, personal issues expressed politically and in an attempt to change the legal system in place can have major side effects. It is not like a Temple willing to "marry" such gay couples.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Good luck to them!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You could argue that I am LOGICALLY attached to some words.

If you had written ILLOGICALLY attached I would agree. However your choosing to be selective about which words are ok to be redefined and which aren't is disingenuous at best.

No one goes out on the street and calls someone "gay" now a days, it's accepted NOW to mean, homosexual. You have accepted that and countless other words as well. If you accept some of them, but not the one word, "marriage" you are proving to everyone that your disdain for it being used for same-sex couples in marriage shows your illogical attachment to the word and also shows it is just an emotional and not intellectual based opinion.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If you had written ILLOGICALLY attached I would agree. However your choosing to be selective about which words are ok to be redefined and which aren't is disingenuous at best.

Obviously you don't understand the word. I already said that I was aware of the changes in how some words like "gay" and "fag" have changed, but that I was also against those changes. Are you ignorant, or is the moderator deleting my posts to make you look that way?

If you accept some of them, but not the one word, "marriage" you are proving to everyone that your disdain for it being used for same-sex couples in marriage shows your illogical attachment to the word and also shows it is just an emotional and not intellectual based opinion.

No disdain. Read the above paragraph. Just standing my ground.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Bugle Boy of Company BFeb. 14 09:13 pm JST

Gotta get woke, eh? I'm not emotionally attached to any word. You could argue that I am LOGICALLY attached to some words.

The way you fight against the definitions of words changing is illogical. The word for the concept of words changing meaning over time is a branch in linguistics, and is called "etymology". People actually study the history of words, and the changes are noted in dictionaries.

It's pretty clear that you are attempting to hold onto words for emotional, not logical, reasons.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Homosexuality is entirely natural. And marriage is about two people who love each other getting hitched.

If you're against it; fine. Just don't take out your irrational fears on people seeking equality.

If you want to be the same as a normal couple, do the same thing.

Gay people are normal. And that's why they're getting married.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I'm well aware of these words and how they used to be used. I am aware that the meaning has changed. Guess what! I'm against that. Surprised?

Why are you speaking modern English then? Back to beowulf English for you, because languages change all the time. Linguistics is a science and it documents the changes in languages as living things, it doesn't try to control language.

Anyway, saying that marriage between two people of the same gender shouldn't be called marriage is expressing a belief that a union between two people of the same gender is not equal to a mixed-gender marriage, and indeed, is lesser than a mixed-gender marriage. Separate but equal never ends up being both of those things.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Marriage is on the right side of history because the two sexes come together and begins a two-person family, the building block of society.

LGBT people can adopt, or have a surrogate. And not every couple, straight or otherwise, has to begin a family. People who get married late in life, or disabled couples, or those who just don't want kids.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Im still not sure why people are still fighting for Gay Marriage. If love is what matters, why  are they fighting so hard for a legal contract? For me marriage is only important if you're going to start a family. Other than that your just changing names. Have a ceremony, buy rings and love each other. What are they really wanting to get out of this?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

:For me marriage is only important if you're going to start a family. 

iradickle, clearly you've never been in an international relationship. The ability to live together in the same country is a big deal.

You to be married to have a family. You do need to be married to get a spouse visa.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Correction: you don't have to be married to start a family. You do need to be married to be a spouse visa.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

taj,

Clearly??

My wife is Japanese. If you want to live in Japan, work. 10 years and you can get a permanent visa. Sure you don't have to be married to have a family but trust me its a lot smoother finacially,legally, and more benificial.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

A married couple IS a family. My wife is my family, I am my wife's family. So yes, marriage is important when you start a family.

Yes, certainly. Marriage is one way to create "family".

It is the reversible through divorce.

Having children, the other way to create family, is permanent. That does not require marriage.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

My wife is Japanese. If you want to live in Japan, work. 10 years and you can get a permanent visa. Sure you don't have to be married to have a family but trust me its a lot smoother finacially,legally, and more benificial.

How easy would it be for you and your wife to relocate to your home country if she weren't eligible for a spouse visa?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

LGBT people can adopt, or have a surrogate. And not every couple, straight or otherwise, has to begin a family. People who get married late in life, or disabled couples, or those who just don't want kids.

Please read what I posted again.

Marriage is on the right side of history because the two sexes come together and begins a two-person family, the building block of society.”

A married man and woman ARE a family whether they have children or not. Anything else is a broken family, and a loving and compassionate society never purposely creates broken families so let’s hope that Japan shows itself to be loving and compassionate by standing for marriage.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Im still not sure why people are still fighting for Gay Marriage. If love is what matters, why are they fighting so hard for a legal contract? For me marriage is only important if you're going to start a family. Other than that your just changing names. Have a ceremony, buy rings and love each other. What are they really wanting to get out of this?

Here in Japan there are a host of reasons for it. One, gay couples can not inherit the estates of a deceased partner in the case there is no will stating otherwise.

Gay couples are not allowed to sign for emergency procedures, nor are they accepted as the spouse or family member in deciding medical procedures if the patient is unable to do so for themselves.

They can not be added as dependents on their spouses taxes and are ineligible for any benefits

And dont think for a moment that a same-sex couple can not raise a child!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

And dont think for a moment that a same-sex couple can not raise a child!

I would argue that "can not" would best be "should not" in this case.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

What are they really wanting to get out of this?

Marriage, love, equality. Stuff most people take for granted.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Please read what I posted again.

Yes, I've read it and replied to it.

Japan will be standing for equal marriage eventually.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I would argue that "can not" would best be "should not" in this case.

So, no marriage or kids for LGBT people, eh?

Kind of goes against your earlier claims.

And many people support the idea that they SHOULD have those rights! I am one of those people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes, I've read it and replied to it.

Yes, you replied with a statement misconstruing my post.

Japan will be standing for equal marriage eventually.

It already does because Japan already has marriage equality.

*So, no marriage or kids for LGBT people, eh?*

Any person can marry, LGBT or not. One’s sexual preference is not a question on an application for a marriage license. The same is true for adoption.

No LGBT person is suffering from any inequality in Japan. They may feel dissatisfaction because one or more of their egocentric itches is not being met, but this does not change the fact they are subject to the same equal restrictions as everyone else. None of us has a right to demand that all of our egocentricities be fulfilled by society.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Kind of goes against your earlier claims.

No. We were talking about taxes, inheritance, etc. not children.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No LGBT person is suffering from any inequality in Japan.

Every LGBT person is suffering from inequality in Japan.

But this will eventually change.

And the curtain twitching hypocritical types won't be able to do a darn thing about it.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

No LGBT person is suffering from any inequality in Japan.

Think about what you wrote here, if it was true, then pray tell why are they forced to go to court to have their marriages recognized? I will help you with the answer; BECAUSE they are suffering from inequality HERE in Japan.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

 I will help you with the answer; BECAUSE they are suffering from inequality HERE in Japan.

Yep. But for some commentators, unless LGBT people are being slaughtered on the streets, they appear to believe that LGBT people should be content with their lot in life.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No. We were talking about taxes, inheritance, etc. not children.

So you want to discriminate against same-sex marriages, yet you want them to have the same rights, but not the right to raise children? Wonder what else you think is "ok" and what's not?

Overall, sounds like discrimination to me. Want to give them "some" but not "all".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In this article, 'marriage' is a legal process. In many countries, adults can legally adopt children born by other couples and the children from other biological parents become the legal dependents. Both adults and children can seek happiness, although they are not biologically related. The same rationale can be applied to the same-sex marriage. Legal status of 'marriage' means a lot in the finance and political right of the couples for seeking happiness, for example: education cost of adopted children, pension, medicare, residency of foreigners, and etc.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So you want to discriminate against same-sex marriages, yet you want them to have the same rights, but not the right to raise children? Wonder what else you think is "ok" and what's not?

I'm fine with same sex couples who have been legally garried to enjoy all the privileges and benefits regarding tax breaks, insurance, inheritance, etc.

But children are people too, and have the right to a mother and father. While many marriages fail, allowing a child to be adopted by a garried couple is starting that child off with a disadvantage. It's unfair to that child.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Every LGBT person is suffering from inequality in Japan.

What inequality are they suffering from concerning marriage? Again, the fact is that anyone of any sexual preference can marry under the same restrictions as everyone else.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Again, the fact is that anyone of any sexual preference can marry under the same restrictions as everyone else.

Again, the fact is that homosexuals are unable to marry under the same freedoms as everyone else. They are not allowed to marry those they love, because they have committed the grievous sin of daring to fall in love with someone who shares the same genitalia.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

...if it was true, then pray tell why are they forced to go to court to have their marriages recognized?

They are going to court to demand that their non-marriages be recognized as marriages. If an immigration officer does not recognize my non-passport as a passport, he or she is not causing me to suffer nor engaging in unjustifiable discrimination.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They are not allowed to marry those they love...

Yes, they can marry those they love under the same rules as everyone else.

They might be disappointed, just like people who love a close blood relative or a child or someone who is already married are disappointed, but they are being treated equally and fairly.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It is naively utopian to think that everyone can have everything. Children are not allowed to vote or drive a car. Retired professors cannot get teaching jobs after a certain age. As much as one may wish to have five wives or a dozen husbands, such is not permitted...Marriage is a special union, related to reproduction and the rearing of children. Homosexual relationships are simply not the same, as anyone with observational skills and a modicum of common sense will know. If Taro wishes to leave all of his property to Kenjiro, he should be allowed to do so. And as ambivalent as one's view of their relationship may be, the police should stay out of their bedroom. But the state should likewise not be in the business of overturning centuries of tradition simply to satisfy Alice-in-Wonderland liberals and intellectoids...Hang tough, Japan! Just because the West has lost its way doesn't mean that the rest of us must follow suit!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What inequality are they suffering from concerning marriage? 

Have you actually read the responses? Come on now! How many times does it have to be pointed out?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'm fine with same sex couples who have been legally garried to enjoy all the privileges and benefits regarding tax breaks, insurance, inheritance, etc.

But children are people too, and have the right to a mother and father. While many marriages fail, allowing a child to be adopted by a garried couple is starting that child off with a disadvantage. It's unfair to that child.

One just because you choose to use a word that does not exist does not change the fact that you come across as being homophobic and fear change.

You also are oblivious to the fact that one does not have to give birth to a child, to be a parent.

You wear your fears and phobia's openly for all to see, for that I give you credit, most would hide them!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes, they can marry those they love under the same rules as everyone else.

No they can't. Under the rules, straight people are allowed to marry the person they love, but gay people are not. So no, they cannot marry those they love under the same rules. They are in fact unable to marry those they love.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Have you actually read the responses? Come on now! How many times does it have to be pointed out?

Yes, there have been responses to the question but no ANSWER to the question.

No one is suffering from any inquality since the rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are already shared by all citizens equally.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Under the rules, straight people are allowed to marry the person they love, but gay people are not. So no, they cannot marry those they love under the same rules. They are in fact unable to marry those they love.

I think you may not have read my full post so I will post it here again.

“They can marry those they love under the same rules as everyone else. 

They might be disappointed, just like people who love a close blood relative or a child or someone who is already married are disappointed, but they are being treated equally and fairly.”

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No one is suffering from any inquality since the rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are already shared by all citizens equally.

No they are not. Straight people are allowed to marry those they love, but those who dare to love someone who shares the same genitalia are not allowed to marry those they love. Different rules.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Straight people are allowed to marry those they love, but those who dare to love someone who shares the same genitalia are not allowed to marry those they love.

Are you purposely pretending to be obtuse? Well, I will give it one more try.

Let’s restate your post for clarity.

“Straight or gay people are allowed to marry those they love, but those, straight or gay, who dare to love someone who shares the same genitalia are not allowed to marry those they love.”

Now do you see that the rules are equally applied? Whatever a peron’s sexual preference is (straight, gay, etc.), they can marry under the same rules as everyone else. This is equally true for the polygamists, incestuous, and pedophiles who wish to marry.

Once last time...the rights and restrictions of matrimony are enjoyed by all citizens equally.

Disliking this objective truth does not invalidate this truth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Are you purposely pretending to be obtuse?

Are you? You keep trying to say everyone is under the same restrictions, and I point out that not everyone is under the same privilege. I couldn’t really care less about your restriction. What I care is that we all receive the same benefits of the society we all contribute to. It’s not right that a gay spouse has no next of kin privileges simply because they dare to love someone with whom they share a common genitalia.

Now you can repeat your illogic as much as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that gay people are not given the same privilege that straight people are. Until you can come up with some way of explaining that they are receiving the same privilege, or that there is a good reason by which to deny it, your argument is irrelevant.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Whatever a peron’s sexual preference is (straight, gay, etc.), they can marry under the same rules as everyone else

No they can’t. Straight people are able to marry those they love. Gay people are not. So no, they aren’t the same rules.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Once last time...the rights and restrictions of matrimony are enjoyed by all citizens equally.

Not the case in this country.

Disliking this objective truth does not invalidate this truth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No they can’t. Straight people are able to marry those they love. Gay people are not. So no, they aren’t the same rules.

Plenty of straight people marry people they don't love.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites