national

Tokyo ward begins certifying LGBT families

34 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

It's usually the ones who are screaming out in anger the loudest who have the least self-confidence and lack self esteem. They're probably in a dead-end loveless relationship and they want everyone else to be just as depressed as them. SMS does not mean every single straight person on earth has to marry someone of their own gender. Just like churches existing doesn't mean we all have to convert to Christianity.

nakanoguy:

All these ordinances are meaningless until the upper echelons of the LDP are willing to modify the constitution.

These people already have one foot in the grave. Give it just a few more years.

bakakuma:

he brought home a book called "My Two Daddies"! forcing others to believe things is wrong!

Yeah, you must have been shocked when you read the footnote, telling young readers to get their straight fathers to get divorced and then marry other men.

The ward's decision came after assemblyman Masateru Shiraishi said in September the municipality would "cease to exist" if the rights of sexual minorities are protected by law, drawing public outcry.

Well, his childless ex-boss, Botchan, isn't really contributing either, and yet he was allowed to marry his now-wife.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Step by step ...

5 ( +12 / -7 )

All these ordinances are meaningless until the upper echelons of the LDP are willing to modify the constitution. And I don't see that happening for another 10-15 years.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Children raised by LGBT parents are far more likely to be bullied, ostracised and discriminated against in this highly conservative country.

I'll be sure to ready myself for the virtual pitchforks and expressions of distaste coming my way, in such a hypothetical situation.

If change comes (which it will) then it will come in time and it is not up to outsiders such as yourself to set about changing Japan.

It's not up to you, either, Chris.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Welcome to the 21st. century Japan.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Until this is a federal standard allowing equality for all, it's something of a toothless gesture still.

That said, these kinds of ordinances help pave the way for that becoming a reality, as people realise the world isn't going to explode because two people declared their mutual love.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Will be interesting later in the day, to return and read all the venom and hate, stirred by this, from both ‘sides(?)’.

*perhaps it’s better to focus our critiques on the content of articles and the manner and intent of ‘how the media in presenting them’ and, *less on who and what they gave their opinion - Who cares? **They have no impact on You but the media and governments do.

I see.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Isn't it a bit odd, conservatives keep on about how important the family is and family values.

You'd think that they would be in favour of more families...

4 ( +11 / -7 )

That a new generation could only be born if lesbian and gay men ignored their sexual preferences and used artificial surrogacy.

No. Artificial insemination can be used, which means that in this fictional universe that does not exist of a 100% homosexual population of Japan, childbirth could still go on.

That “family” is a social construction and, therefore, families were arbitrarily created by society

Yep.

and hence consist of a nonsensical foundation.

Not necessarily. Money is a thing that doesn't exist in nature, and was created by society, yet it has a very obvious use function for mankind.

That sexual minority couples are anything “similar,” and therefore this is also a nonsensical description.

No, it isn't. There is a really good use for people to have families. But a family can be something other than "a man, a woman, and their biological child". An adoptive parent is a parent. An adoptive family is a family. A family with two Dads is a family.

Also, that two people are the “norm,” which means this is another social limit that is capricious and is subject to arbitrary changes.

Yes. Two people in a relationship wasn't always the norm. Just look at the Bible.

Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child, and should not be done without some compelling or unavoidable reason.

Children in single parent households have done very well for centuries. You need to provide some evidence.

Any thoughts for the children in all of this?

What about them?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Children raised by LGBT parents are far more likely to be bullied, ostracised and discriminated against in this highly conservative country.

I'm glad you accept that conservatism leads to bullying and child abuse. Let's get rid of conservatism.

If change comes (which it will)

Good, then let's hurry it along. Why do you want to wait longer for things to get better.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Well done !!..

Moving forward Japan !!..

Sorry medievals, a family is a family, no matter who belongs It..

Like It or not..

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Progress will always be feared by the ignorant and hateful.

I'm against it

Well, of course. We terrify you.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

What are “sexual minority couples”? 

Typically same-sex couples, or couples where one or both of the people are transgender, non-binary, or similar.

Who defines what “sexual minority” is?

Probably the municipalities offering recognition.

Are all sexual minorities included? All of them?

I don't know. You'd have to ask the municipalities.

And why “couples”?

Two people in a relationship is the typical norm in Japan, and indeed elsewhere. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Why are the “moves to recognize” limited to couples?

Probably because two people in a relationship is the norm. Polyamorous relationships are fine, in my view, but I recognise the legal difficulties they might present in the event of death, divorce, etc., so I can see why they wouldn't be included in these efforts.

Who decided this?

Probably the municipalities offering recognition.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

A major Trump-supporting Republican is at the centre of the biggest sex scandal in the US right now and JT declines to mention it.

Yes. Kind of disappointed with that.

Still, there is the priceless moment in the interview when the alleged GOPaedophile tries to drag a clearly worried news host into the whole dodgy (alleged) business.

Note that the host doesn't back up the Republican golden boy. Even he knows when to step away...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So like getting a honor certificate at school. Makes you feel good at the moment but it really doesn't mean anything. And since city hall A doesn't know how much hoken you paid at city hall B, even more pointless.

Make it legal already and stop putting pinky bandaids on a large wound. No, it won't stop people from having kids or tear down society as politicians preach it.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

I'm against it.

@Thomas Tank

Why would you be against something that does not affect you or involve you? You are not being asked to do or give up anything...

Any steps or progress that helps to bring more love, happiness and belonging (family) is a good thing in my book.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

A 79year old oyaji . Says it all .

1 ( +7 / -6 )

It’s progress against an archaic way of thinking. As long as both parties are of the age of consent and of sound minds, they should be allowed to turn their love into a binding legal contract. Few things say, “I love you” than being willing to contract on it.

Will be interesting later in the day, to return and read all the venom and hate, stirred by this, from both ‘sides(?)’.

It will be breathtaking the emotions a a piece of paper without legal authority will evoke.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Putting aside whether one likes this statement or not, is it factually or objectively incorrect?

Firstly, it's a question, not a statement, so it cannot be correct or factual. Secondly, even he accepts that it is impossible, so it's not worth considering. Finally, if you make it into a statement: "If all Japanese women were lesbian, and all Japanese men were gay, then a new generation could not be born", it would still be wrong, as surrogacy exists.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If not, then a family is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture, and is fluctuatingly undefinable.

Yep.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I feel for the children caught up in this, because they are gonna have a hard time.

Why?

Society in general is tough enough without being classified.

What do you mean?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I keep reading ‘we’ and ‘our’. Sounds like some kind of cult. I is better. I think this is great news.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I feel for the children caught up in this, because they are gonna have a hard time.Society in general is tough enough without being classified.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"This is impossible, but if all Japanese women were lesbian or all Japanese men were gay, then do you think the next generation of people will be born?" Mr Shiraishi said.

Putting aside whether one likes this statement or not, is it factually or objectively incorrect?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Tokyo ward begins certifying LGBT families"

Reminds me of The Wizard of OZ: We declare without further ado that you are now certified to have a heart, a brain, and are now accepted into The Land of OZ.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Once again, the conservative bashers can't wait to post their nonsense.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Readers, no more bickering please.

So, you “see” @BobFosse 10:04am. And, ‘thanks’ for reposting our comments to You from another thread about another, important social issue. Then, we agree, those comments aren’t “absolute nonsense”.  In this forum as well, the context is just as applicable:

“*It’s reprehensible when ineffectual governments, ‘for-profit’ corporations, narcissistic celebrities and manipulative media headlines try to ‘USE’ social issues to divide people further, as a means for their exclusive profit and promotion**”. - Real actions by those entities are the only things that can affect change, not just formulaic ‘outrage’. And, all the cultivated bickering between “conservatives, moderates and liberals” we are performing for them is of no real *consequence.

(If you want our personal stance about ANY kind of government-sanctioned, nationally-recognized’, “legal marriages”, you’ll need to go back further in our ‘comment history’.) -

In the meantime, only 1/4 of the day has passed, and we’re still waiting to see how much ‘hate’ can emerge before this thread will close.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What is a family? There are only two possible answers to this question: Either “family” has a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or it does not.

If the definition of family is teleological, then no liberty exists to redefine it.

If not, then a family is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture, and is fluctuatingly undefinable.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Thomas Tank

Thank you for speaking up against a social experiment that affects society and, therefore, every member of society. Especially children.

Children without a father or mother are missing important nutrients. They are anemic. A child is entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought him or her into being. But no child can defend these entitlements themselves. These entitlements must be supported proactively, before harm is done, for those rights to be protected at all. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child, and should not be done without some compelling or unavoidable reason.

And no such reasons have been offered in this thread yet.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Moves to recognize sexual minority couples have been spreading among municipalities...

What are “sexual minority couples”? Who defines what “sexual minority” is? Are all sexual minorities included? All of them?

And why “couples”? Why are the “moves to recognize” limited to couples? Who decided this?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Lazarus Knows

Thank you for your intellectual honesty.

That a new generation could only be born if lesbian and gay men ignored their sexual preferences and used artificial surrogacy.

That “family” is a social construction and, therefore, families were arbitrarily created by society and hence consist of a nonsensical foundation.

That sexual minority couples are anything “similar,” and therefore this is also a nonsensical description.

That you are unaware if all sexual minorities will be treated as equal.

Also, that two people are the “norm,” which means this is another social limit that is capricious and is subject to arbitrary changes.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I'm against it.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Will be interesting later in the day, to return and read all the venom and hate, stirred by this, from both ‘sides(?)’.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites