Same-sex couples to file suits for marriage equality in several courts on Feb 14

I have no problem with couples of the same sex wanting to get married, but when one of them expects me to accept they're not the gender they're obviously born with, then it becomes laughable, and I don't give a crap about all the gender identity BS.

While Article 24 of the Constitution says, "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes," it does not necessarily prohibit same-sex marriage, Shinya Maezono, a member of a group of lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said.

It sounds like it's time to update the constitution to define, no, clarify (for those who refuse to acknowledge) marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

'Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes', says the Constitution of Japan. I don't see how there is any way this can be twisted to be interpreted as allowing same sex marriage.

It's wonderful that they love and care for one another. Polygamous partners do as well. The Constitution doesn't support either of thier claims to marriage licenses and neither do I, but may all these irregular sexual/romantic arrangements live in happiness and peace.

Live and let live. If their choice does not restrict your choice, why should you be concerned?

Why are they suing for something -- marital equality -- they already have?

They are just as free as anyone else to enter into a legal union with someone of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.

Live and let live. If their choice does not restrict your choice, why should you be concerned?

Because "gay marriage" cannot exist without the rest of society being forced to accept it.

That's why same-sex "married" couples are trying to force people who object to "gay marriage" to bake their "wedding" cakes and so on.

If I were a baker, I would gladly make a birthday cake for a gay person. Or an anniversary cake, Mothers' Day cake, or whatever.

But I should not be forced to participate in a ceremony celebrating something my religious and moral views see as immoral.

It's not about gay people, who I see as no less human as anyone else. It's about behavior that at least half the world finds immoral.

And there is no comparing homosexuality to race, so the word "discrimination" applies only to the latter. "Discrimination" does not apply to behaviors.

God almighty, the usual comments copied directly from the Daily Mail.

belrick:

but when one of them expects me to accept they're not the gender they're obviously born with

Did either of the women say they were transgendered? If not, why bring up this subject? And the sky is blue.

Burning Bush:

Either keep marriage to men and women only or allow it for all people, including those that practice polygamy.

Well then, I'm sure you'll feel right at home in Mormon land or the Muslim world. Good luck.

Bugle:

It sounds like it's time to update the constitution to define, no, clarify (for those who refuse to acknowledge) marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

You know what they say, if you don't agree with same sex marriage, then don't get married to something of the same sex. I'm not forcing you to be nosey. You choose to be nosey.

Jenni:

They are just as free as anyone else to enter into a legal union with someone of the opposite sex.

Dear lord, did you read the article, or are you just writing random posts?

Because "gay marriage" cannot exist without the rest of society being forced to accept it.

As a strict vegetarian, I don't accept eating meat. However, I don't care what other people eat. It's their choice. ie, I mind my own business.

But I should not be forced to participate in a ceremony celebrating something my religious and moral views see as immoral.

Well, I sure as heck don't agree with a lot of your religious mumbo-jumbo, especially those concerning violence towards women and children. And yet, the church still gets tax relief. From everyone else's taxes.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. " - Judge Anthony Kennedy, Obergefell v. Hodges

While Article 24 of the Constitution says, "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes," it does not necessarily prohibit same-sex marriage,

That's right its the law that says marriage is between a man and a woman, this court case is waste of time. The Government of day has the power to change the law based on voter intentions - simple answer have a referendum making everyone compulsory to participate.