The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOJapanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
SAPPORO/TOKYO©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
Video promotion
©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
79 Comments
WoodyLee
How about keeping the entire justice system out of Marriage for a change!!!?
People should be free to live and partner with who ever they wish to be with without a damn certificate or permission from anyone as long as the are healthy and in agreement.
Ivan Martinez
We're deep inside the 21st century. I think it's time to stop caring about whom the neighbor sleeps with.
Maybe also keeping religions for the private environment and not funding any with public money?
Concerned Citizen
So every other organisation contributing to the public good can receive funding but not religious ones? That would be discrimination.
What about religious hospitals, schools, DV shelters, homeless shelters, orphanages etc? Should existing funding be withdrawn?
Moonraker
True, but at present special benefits are conferred on partners who are married. These are obviously denied to those who are not in a conventional marriage.
Redemption
It's gonna happen one way or another. The key factor is how fast the old dinosaurs retire and let progressive judges rule.
KazukoHarmony
What does that mean?
ian
No problems in that case.
But plaintiffs in this case want that certificate
Seigi
It's unconstitutional in many ways. Love is love.
OssanAmerica
Why didn't the couple just fly to Osaka or anywhere else that recognizes same sex mariages and get married there?
virusrex
Because their marriage would not be recognized once they went back to their place of residency? the whole point is that they are claiming they are being unfairly discriminated against, that would still apply if they were forced to travel to other cities to have their rights recognized, much more because even by doing that they would still be considered unmarried where they live.
wallace
Japan does not recognize any same-sex marriages.
OssanAmerica
So if a Male/Female couple get married in Osaka that they are legally married is not recognized in Sapporo? That's what you are saying.
OssanAmerica
But all 47 Prefectures now recognize Same Sex Relationships which allow received benefits amd services from both the public and private sector.
Antiquesaving
It will be interesting to see once they are permitted to get married how the name situation will work and how divorces will be like!
The stats in the western countries are interesting.
Heterosexual divorce is now around 50%.
Male same sex is between 16% and 25% depending on the country.
Female same sex is between 69% and 75% depending on the country!
In Japan the present divorce rate is around 35%
So it will be interesting to see how same sex marriages faire!
In most other countries no name change is required but as of today in Japan still requires one partner in a marriage takes the other's surname.
I wonder if same sex marriages may result in heterosexual marriages gaining the right to keep their birth surnames?
garymalmgren
Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
Another court ruling that the government will simply ignore.
Along with the continual rulings that electoral boundaries (as they stand ) are unconstitutional.
gary
wallace
Japan does not recognize same-sex marriages, domestic or foreign. That is also what the article is about.
"Gay marriage is still not legally recognized on the national level, so local ordinances and systems on same-sex partnerships are not legally binding."
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15075515
justasking
That's tricky especially when it comes to inheritance. If you have multiple partners and not one official, they will fight over your wealth. This way, government as the arbiter is straightforward.
Antiquesaving
Or they will pull a sneaky move like they did when the courts said it was unconstitutional to deny Japanese children their primary caregiver when their primary caregiver was a foreigner.
Basically immigration was saying that after divorce those on spouse visas had to leave the country when that visa expired even if they were the primary caregiver (had custody) of Japanese children! (Note at the time when you divorced you could remain in Japan to the expiry date of the visa this has now changed)
Meaning the children would also have to leave!
The court ruling said this was unconstitutional as it denied the Japanese child, their parent, so at the end of their remaining spouse visa, immigration had to give the parent PR or at a minimum a long term visa.
In December 2002 just before the holidays the law was amended and those getting divorced would have 90 days from the divorce to obtain a new visa and it was made retroactive so those that were already divorced still on a spouse visa had 90 calendar days from the December date to obtain a new visa.
No one was notified and by the time many found out they were in theory in violation by "overstaying"!
This 90 days also makes it impossible to apply and process PR.
So between the "overstaying" charge ( in many cases at the time) and the short application period immigration circumvented the rulling.
I can see the government doing something similar by making applying or getting same sex marriage so complicated or placing some form of conditions that it becomes near impossible and will trigger another court challenge that will again head to the supreme Court and if the government loses again they will just make changes again and everyone will just go around and around in circles never getting anything finalized.
didou
Do all you realize that this is a big decision in Japan.
The first time a high court recognizes the ban is unconstitutional.
A big change
isabelle
Come on, Japan. Take a leaf out of Taiwan's book and make same-sex marriage fully legal.
It's 2024; not the Dark Ages.
リッチ
Two adults, wishing to seek legal partnership, which marriage is should be allowed to do so. There are so many cases of one partner, becoming ill, and not being able to visit their loved one before they pass away or right on ownership of property or tax benefits of a married couple. And those who argue they shouldn’t get tax benefits from it are probably unaware that having two heads of households in the same house allows for many other benefits actually provided by the government.
Chibakun
What benefits are they missing out on?
JRO
I have written this many times, but why does it matter at all what kind of relationship or gender two people have that want's to create legally binding partnership? why does it have to be romantic at all? Just two people that want to be responsible for each other in case something happens etc.
garymalmgren
ChibakunToday 08:18 pm JST
What benefits are they missing out on?
tax concessions.
Inheritance.
property ownership.
pensions.
etc.
リッチ
Every single benefit legally Married couple have. Joint accounts, right of inheritance medical decisions that may need to happen from a family member, joint ownership of property, being able to not be discriminated against by landlords, owning and renting properties, tax benefits, spouse visas for foreign related couples. And honestly the list goes on. In 2024 you don’t know this?
itsonlyrocknroll
There is provision for same sex civil partnerships. civil unions
In all honesty silence is golden, same sex relationships, let alone marriage, is not something from my experience of local community, not openly discussed beyond whispers.
Couples are reluctant even to admit to there own families.
This admittance, that the denial of same sex marriage is unconstitutional is little more than a tacit agreement, purely political window dressing.
Only when the people as a community openly fully endorse same sex gender relationships will any possibility change will be discussed at Diet level.
lostrune2
Go Japan!
ian
Is this an error by the govt or the writer of this article?
The govt argument should be that the constitution presumes marriage to be only between opposite sex couples not only between heterosexual couples
John-San
How about reporting the item correctly. It was a Prefecture court which has no bearing on Constitution Law. You know this JT.. It seem countries that don,t have same sex marriage has not gone Bat shite like the one that have. USA has with leftie nuts jobs, Australia and NZ has the same leftie nut jobs, The UK and Europe the same. And I am a left voter.
Dirk
Just like legalizing polygamous marriages would diminish the value of monogamy, legalizing same sex marriages would diminish the value of heterosexuality and the relationship between mother, father and children. How can you still say that it's important for children to have a mother and father, when there's nothing unique anymore in society about the relationship between man and woman? It would even be considered as discrimination to say such a thing. And we know that whenever gay marriage becomes legal, adoption rights follow. So it's not correct to claim that marriage is only about a commitment between adults.
Once you argue that commitment between adults is sufficient for being accepted legally as marriage, there's also no good argument against siblings marrying each other and siblings are known to have long committed romantic relationships with each other. And certainly marriages between cousins then have to be allowed everywhere.
There's no discrimination against same sex relationships when we only legally recognize opposite sex marriages, because it's about two clearly different types of relationships, where heterosexual relationships are important for society while homosexuality is only a private matter. If straight couples would always be infertile that's when you could talk about discrimination, but the rule is that normally, sooner or later a man and woman have children together when they have a sexual relationship, and that's why throughout human history, virtually every culture has always given a unique form of recognition to the relationship between men and women.
We know that some people in polyamorous relationships also celebrate their love as a marriage. When you talk about this with supporters of same sex marriage, they often even admit that they have no problem with that. But somehow governments and judges don't care about that. It cannot be a legal marriage because it still has to be only between two people. Doesn't make much sense anymore once you consider marriage as only about commitment between adults and legal benefits corresponding with their relationship.
diobrando
Well we all know that Supreme Court will not accept it and in this life I dont think I will see Japan changing what its law for 5% people...
JaviLM
What a stupid argument.
If an organization is doing some good for the public then it would be justified for them to receive public funding for doing that good, but NOT for being religious organizations.
Keep your religion to yourself and far, far away from government and legislation.
JaviLM
Another stupid argument.
What is exactly, according to you, the value of monogamy? What's the value of heterosexuality?
The fact is that you attribute value to them because you're biased by your upbringing or by your religious beliefs.
Polyamory and homosexuality aren't inherently of more or less value than monogamy or heterosexuality.
Strangerland
Canada has had same sex marriage longer than almost any country, and it's a paradise here. One of the highest countries on the quality of life index, and the country people most want to move to in the world.
Seems your theory is pretty weak.
桜川雪
The high court did redefine the word "both" in "both sexes" to mean "same", so it is possible it could be redefined to from dual to plural. Seems like a living constitutional argument they gave as opposed to a textual or originalist. In either case, I'm for this as long as they allow adoptions and such.
Strangerland
Well we all know that Supreme Court will not accept it and in this life I dont think I will see Japan changing what its law for 5% people...
Japan moves slow, but it does move. It's been moving towards same-sex marriage for 20 years, and keeps getting closer and closer. And as more people are openly gay in society, people realize that the only thing wrong with homosexuality is something broken in the person criticizing it, and as they realize that, they won't want people to be held back from the people they love. Particularly as kids who are growing up in world that realizes persecution of homosexuality was the sin, they will change the laws as they get older and the dinosaurs die off.
It happened in other countries, and it's happening in Japan. This court case is just one more step further in that direction.
proxy
Japan is a liberal society with a majority of liberal minded folks. At the end of the day, Japan will allow same-sex marriages and give full recognition. A consensus is being built and once built the entire populace will be on-board. From 1882 when Japan legalized homosexuality until the 1980's or so Japan was more progressive than western countries and will be again when a consensus on same-sex marriage has been built. After same-sex marriage has been allowed in Japan with a strong consensus there will not be any sort of religiously-based backlash as experienced in western countries.
Tsuchifumazu
I don't think Japan is a liberal society. Quite conservative actually. One of the biggest things the banning of same sex marriage has going for it is the limited liability when it doesn't work out. But, if same sex Japanese couples want to stand in line to lose half their stuff then so be it.
リッチ
polygamy is allowed in any Muslim country and until recently Utah. Have some very good friends in Indoneisa with several wives and they are very happy. If they want to do it why not? But this article is about Japan and finally some movement to Aline it with 1st world counties. If you don’t want to get married to the same gender, don’t.
OB one
You don’t need a marriage certificate to live with someone that you really truly love! So why do you publicize it !? I know a lot of gay and lesbian and they all tell me this is nothing but political!, and most likely back by American
I am an American I lived in this country longer than I have in America, right now what I see is going on in America you could not pay me enough to move back home, the country is sick!! Don’t let Japan become another America.Slayer
When Japan Legalizes medical marijuana then same-sex marriage will be ok, so same-sex marriage will never happen, ever.
proxy
@Tsuchifumazu
Japan is a liberal society rating about the same as the US and Canada and slightly lower than the UK.
It all depends of what is included. If classical ideas of liberalism and freedom are weighted heavily Japan scores very high. If "progressive" ideas of equity, which is not equality are weighed heavily, Japan drops down but is still high compared to most places. . Those "progression" rankings give high marks for wealth redistribution by the state and having open borders to migrants who become dependant on social programs funded by workers. Sweden scores high on progressive rankings but has a crime rate double that of Japan which has an enormous impact of freedom enjoyed by citizens. Yes, Japan scores low of the number of female managers but Sweden scores low on the number of woman who feel safe walking home at night.
proxy
@Slayer
Japan will never legalize medical marijuana. The side effects of a soft on pot attitude is the high levels of drug addiction, homelessness and crime experienced in many cities. Going down that road to de-stigmatizing drug use so a few people can get stoned is not worth the risk of Tokyo turning into downtown San Francisco.
Jonathan Prin
If you think sex is not connected to procreation and all rights inherited by children, then never complain about demography's sinking.
Don't change definitions.
zibala
This is Japan. People have to obey the laws.
Mr Goodman
Marriage in japan is between a biological man and biological woman only
It's called Marriage
proxy
@TaiwanIsNotChina
De-stigmatizing weed was literally the gateway drug that started the homeless, crime drug addiction problem in San Francisco.
itsonlyrocknroll
Just casually viewing talento tv nightly shows whilst enjoying a drink with our neighbours, friends, a programme fronted by a man in drag raises the sniggers and laughs. The odd openly effeminate contributor raises claps
When banter moves to media news, the reality is impossible to ignore, all must stay firmly in the closet.
Queerness is something to laugh at, not an acceptable way of life.
voiceofokinawa
Constitutional rules are written on the basis of common sense. Thus, marriage is stipulated in Article 24 of the Japanese constitution as a union between two agreed sexes, i.e., an agreement between man and woman. Same-sex marriage is out of consideration here.
girl_in_tokyo
Exactly.
There are no logical reasons to deny same-sex couples the right of marriage. There are only personal prejudices and bigotry.
And it's about time the courts recognized that the constitution applies to everyone, and not just hereosexuals.
girl_in_tokyo
itsonlyrocknrollToday 07:13 am JST
It's not "a way of life".
It's simply how people are.
And that you think it is acceptable to actively discriminate against people, who are not doing any harm, simply because of how they were born, really shows exactly what kind of person you are.
There's way too much bigotry in this world. People really are just awful.
itsonlyrocknroll
Sorry, girl_in_tokyo, I am not intentionally provoking a reaction that could be construed as bigotry.
For some, many I suggest, the natural need, the divine purpose of marriage cannot and never will accept same sex relationships let alone marriage into society.
It will always be the silent majority that needs persuading
Unfortunately, a fact as you rightly point out, people really are just awful..
JaviLM
@proxy
Wrong.
Homelessness, crime and drug addiction in San Francisco and other parts of the US are caused by a combination of factors. The main is people going bankrupt because of the US government's ridiculous approach to health insurance and the lack of workers protection over there.
When people are sick and can't afford the medication they need to survive, or when families don't have enough money to feed their children, that's when they have to resort to crime in order to try and get what they need but the government isn't providing.
Jimizo
You have a very high opinion of ‘common sense’ and seem to think it doesn’t change in these areas.
Constitutions based on ‘common sense’ are amended and reinterpreted often based on ‘common sense’.
It’s a good thing they are.
Strangerland
Common sense of 100+ years ago.
voiceofokinawa
Jimizo,
It's true that constitutions often change and are rewritten. But the change is usually over wording, or addition of clauses, not the change of the spirit behind it.
Or when there is a regime change, along with it a constitutional change. Even so, universal values remain the same.
Strangerland
Times change. Sticking to an ancient document and trying to apply it to modern day sensibilities is a logical impossibility, and results in stagnation, and unjust decisions.
A healthy government will update it's constitution as necessarily, to reflect modern sensibilities.
girl_in_tokyo
itsonlyrocknrollToday 09:42 am JST
Bigotry has a definition. This is not a mater of "construing" your comments as bigotry.
You don't have to accept it. You just have to tolerate it.
We all must tolerate things we don't like or disapprove of. I vehemently dislike religion and think the entire concept is silly. But somehow I manage not to broadcast that at every opportunity, and I don't speak out with the intention of gathering support with the aim of getting religion banned.
All you have to do is let other people live their lives without interference. You can silently disapprove as you go about your own business. Try it.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
/dev/randomToday 12:12 am JST
I know you are happy with the ruling, but this is really knowingly mis-reading the text. If they really were thinking to "grant agency to both spouses", instead of 両性 they can write 両者 or 双方.
Dirk
How does that make any sense at all? We literally exist thanks to heterosexual intercourse. You cannot even understand the difference between a man and a woman without this. It's because heterosexuality is essential for our species that cultures for thousands of years have celebrated the relationship between man and woman (monogamy or polygamy) as something very unique and important. This is like a universal timeless understanding of society and our species which suddenly now is being explained as a form of discrimination.
Monogamy expresses the equality between man and woman. It also expresses the particular, exclusive nature of a man and a woman becoming father and mother of the same child. The sexual union between man and woman loses its profound meaning for their relationship when they start sharing their bodies with others. It diminishes the meaning of love between one man and one woman. Something that is less exclusive, loses at least part of its value. That's a general notion for many things.
voiceofokinawa
The purpose of Cultural Revolution that stormed China in the latter days of the Mao era was to eradicate everything concerned with the past and traditions. Red guards destructed everything that smacked of the past.
I hereby ask: Are traditional values and wisdom all bad? Must they be done away with completely for more modern ideas and values?
girl_in_tokyo
DirkToday 05:44 pm JST
What is the difference between polygamy and polyamory?
The biggest difference is that in most polygamous cultures women do not have the choice of who they marry, and men take other wives, often without the permission of the other wife, while women aren't allowed to take other husbands.
Polyamory is equal in all respects because it's by choice, and not a cultural imperative. Obviously, poyamory is far superior in that regard.
It's obviously not universal or timeless since people are openly and vociferously disagreeing with this.
Sexism and gender inequality exist despite monogamy being prevalent, so how can monogamy be the answer for attaining equality?
A man and a woman becoming father and mother of the same child is biological, and has nothing to do with monogamy.
This is a personal opinion, not a fact.
Strangerland
How does that make any sense at all?
How does it not? Only deluded people with an overinflated sense of self-worth think it doesn't.
Sure you can. We are physically different. It's really not that hard to differentiate between men and women, unless maybe you have some mental deficiency.
Often, it doesn't. Remember when women were made to be in the kitchen? Your theory isn't very strong.
Not if they are both ok with sharing their bodies with others.
No it doesn't.
Just making things up and saying them won't change that. You've put out a bunch of unsupported opinions, and asked us to accept them as if they held any validity.
Dirk
When comparing monogamy to polygamy, monogamy puts man and woman on the same level, whereas with polygamy you have multiple women for one man. This is a form of inequality.
I am not saying that monogamy automatically translates into equality, but the starting point is more about equality than when one man has multiple wives.
Polygamy could also exist so that women do have more choice and I am not saying that this is always wrong, but there's always the idea that multiple wives have to support one man. It kind of puts a man in a superior position. And yes in monogamy a culture can put the man also in a superior position, but here I am simply comparing the basic idea of monogamy vs polygamy.
Being ok with it, doesn't make you keep the meaning of having an exclusive union. The more you share your body with others, the less unique your union is with one person. This will always affect the experience of love in a relationship. It doesn't mean you will necessarily break up after a while, but you can't just ignore how being intimate with another person affects your feelings. Inevitably you will also start making comparisons. If you think polyamory is fine, then I wonder if your whole perception of sexual and emotional intimacy is not quite superficial to begin with. The more partners you have sex with in your life, the less meaning this has, to the point that you will not even understand what it could have been, if you would have shared all this with only one person.
Without procreation requiring both male and female, there would simply be no difference between a man and a woman, because man and woman would not exist. We would be a different species altogether.
Even the most stupid animal, when it requires male and female for procreation, is able to understand through its instincts that homosexuality can not possibly be at the same level as heterosexuality. Otherwise it would not be very good at survival :-) Maybe if we would mass produce children in labs and downgrade our humanity to such an extent that it becomes irrelevant to love and be loved by your own biological parents, maybe then you could start thinking that homosexuality is somewhat on the same level as heterosexuality.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Animals aren't thinking about anything but sex when they are having sex. There is a theory, though, that communal animals like humans can have a wide range of sexuality for different purposes. For example, if a gay uncle helps to raise his nephew or supports the nephew's family, he is helping to pass on some of his genes. Nonfatal recessive traits also cannot be removed from the gene pool.
Strangerland
And neither can you logically say that polyamory translates into inequality.
Is it? Any data to back up this assertion, or is it just what you reckon?
Strangerland
This is also not born of fact. Relationships are not exclusively sex, nor do they even need to be sexual. If your marriage comes down purely to sex, it doesn't say much about the strength of your marriage.
Even the most stupid animal, when it requires male and female for procreation, is able to understand through its instincts that homosexuality can not possibly be at the same level as heterosexuality.
And yet you see homosexual acts across nature. It's very common in the animal kingdom.
Not a black and white situation you see.
桜川雪
What if they had not re-legalized alcohol in the 1930s? Would it have led to an even better, less abusive, and more productive society?
Dirk
Polygamous marriage has several disadvantages. One major disadvantage is the inherent inequality it creates . In monogamous marriage, spouses give themselves unreservedly and unconditionally to each other, while polygamy allows for multiple spouses, leading to a lack of exclusivity and commitment . Additionally, polygamy has negative effects on the social, economic, physical, and mental well-being of women . Factors such as illiteracy, being a wife of a husband with multiple other wives, current history of depression, intimate partner violence, and poor social support are significantly associated with suicidal behavior among wives in polygamous marriages . Furthermore, polygamy is a structurally inegalitarian practice, both in theory and in practice . These disadvantages highlight the need to minimize the practice of polygamy and its negative impact on individuals and society .
From "What are the disadvantages of polygamy marriage? | 5 Answers from Research papers (typeset.io)"
I will never say that it doesn't happen (often). My point is only that it has not the same value as heterosexuality and so that it's not discrimination to give a unique form of recognition to sexual relationships between men and women, as the sexual component of these relationships has clearly and important function for society, which cannot be said about sexual intercourse between people of the same sex. I do very much support laws which may grant certain benefits related to inheritance or medical decisions to other people than a spouse or close relatives.
I am only talking here about having sexual relationships with more than one person at the same time. If your point is that a sexual relationship is not negatively affected by having other relationships which are only platonic, then I have no problem with that.
Polyamory makes it more complicated to give equal attention to everybody. Thus there's a bigger risk for inequality. I guess with multiple partners of the same sex (like three men), you eliminate one factor of inequality as there's only one gender. However this debate to me is mostly about marriage. And polyamorous marriages don't exist at all in the broad sense that gender is no longer relevant. So that's why I compared polygamy (not polyamory) to monogamy. I doubt that we will quickly see polyamorous marriages. This would support the argument that gay marriage created a slippery slope and it would obviously require legalizing polygamy itself, and there I just don't see progressives making an argument in favor of it yet in media.
Strangerland
No, that is not my point. My point is that sexuality as you define it is outdated. There are plenty of people who have sexual relations with others, and have a unique relationship with each other. It was a bit of culture shock to me when I moved to Canada, as I have met a surprising number of people who are sexually open.
That's not to say there is anything wrong with a monogamous relationship - my wife and I are monogamous. But our relationship is not diminished by our friends', and neither do our friends' relationships seem to be any less loving, affectionate, or intimate than ours.
Strangerland
There is a risk for inequality with any two people. I'd say adding people adds more complexity, but again, that's not guaranteed either.
I'd need to see some actual data to accept many of your assertions.
Dirk
There are a lot of articles with arguments against polyamory. But you will never be able to prove that every polyamorous relationship is necessary going to be a failure. There could also be for example a successfull polygamous family like the one from Ziona Chana with 38 wives, where they end up building a whole village just for themselves and their children. But we can still advise to not put polygamy on the same level of recognition and acceptance as monogamy by legalizing such marriages.
As for arguments against polyamory. I will take some from realtalkphilosophy.org. - Human beings are deeply complex, messy, and flawed. Polyamory doesn’t take into account the reality of feelings of jealousy, feelings of possession, feelings of insecurity, fear, abandonment that naturally arise. - The flip side of experiencing so much love, is an inordinate amount of heartache and heartbreak. Having a greater number of partners increases the overall amount of emotional support a person needs to provide. Without a firm commitment, and the opportunity to explore other people, do you believe your partner will stick through this time with you? Would you? - Many people can’t find time to adequately support one partner, let alone 3 or 4. And this scarcity of time causes difficult choices to sometimes be made. One could envision a polyamorous utopia wherein all partners are treated with equal time and affection. Where all your lovers will be invited to your sister’s wedding. But this is rarely the case. A hierarchy, a pecking order is almost always established. And for a primary partner to be downgraded from their exclusive seat of supreme importance in the mind and heart of their lover can be devastating. - Once you find partners, the expectation that your partners will get along swimmingly is misguided. Sometimes that unicorn polycule is achieved where all partners involved love one another, but this is extremely rare. - It’s presumed that all of this potential for jealousy, and heartache, and fear can be remedied through conversation. But this often leads to exhaustive, tiring communication tearing apart the nuances of each action and feeling. This leaves many polyamorists longing for the days of having one simple, unshakable rule. Don’t sleep with other people. - Once the relationship gets more serious, the children must be considered. It can be extremely beneficial to be raised by several parental figures. But if one parental figure were to leave, and there wasn’t the institution of marriage stopping them, it can be extremely devastating for the child. - Maybe people have the presumption that there would be more love for everyone in a world absent of monogamy. But if we look at the animal kingdom, this isn’t actually the case. More than 90% of mammals practice not only polyamory, but polygyny, that is one male with multiple females. And as a result, we see what’s known as the Pareto Distribution or the 80-20 rule. That is, in the animal kingdom about 80% of females are partnered with only about 20% of males. And this is a problem. It’s been argued thoroughly that the primary reason human beings have so successfully dominated the planet is our unique ability to cooperate in such large numbers. But if only 20% of males have female sexual partners, there would likely be an unprecedented amount of fighting and competition within the species. Our ability to collaborate would crumble. So, a remedy for this fighting would be to ensure that every one male has one female. Monogamy.
girl_in_tokyo
@Dirk
To get back on topic, same-sex couples should be allowed the same rights of marriage as everyone else, and their relationships are not inferior in any way. The facts are this: LGBTQIA love just as hard and just deeply and just as long as heterosexual couples. Their lives have the same value, and they can raise and care for children if they so chose.
You keep speaking if you are speaking fact and not simply your opinion. You should work on understanding that there are all different kinds of people in the world who don't feel the way you do, and their feelings are just as valid as your own.
No one is demanding you accept same-sex marriage, polyamory, or any other relationship structure; only that you must tolerate it and not seek to undermine, denigrate, or attempt to prevent them from living with the same freedom as you live. That is equality.
girl_in_tokyo
You also keep using the terms "polyamory" and "polygamy" as if they were analogous. If you don't even know what those words mean, you should probably look them up and stop making assertions as if you know something about them. It's pretty clear that you don't.