Reverence for tradition threatens same-sex marriage in Japan

I used to not care about what people do concerning their own lives--I still don't--but this constant beating over the head with gay agenda is slowly eroding my sympathy and support for the lgbt ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? community.

The Japanese Constitution needs to be updated to include extending equal rights to all who wish to marry. What's downstairs should have nothing to do with it. It's love!

"We are a culture where people are turned off by conflict and place a high value on harmony."

What is your definition of harmony? People suffering in silence?

I reckon one of the big sticking points is the state support given to married couples. The government does this as an antiquated way of supporting child-raising, even though some couples do not have children and none spend their entire lives raising under 18s.

To continue supporting children but ease any worries about sham gay marriages assumed to be for benefits, the thing to do would be change the welfare system from supporting spouses to supporting guardians of children.

I think you'd find the path to full recognition of gay marriage would be much easier if spouse (housewife) benefits did not exist. Most gay couples won't care about spousal dependency anyway. What they want are other forms of recognition.

For while surveys show overwhelming support for gay rights, most LGBT+ Japanese say they keep their sexuality a secret in a nod to the reverence for harmony that pervades high-tech Japan.

What in the hell does "high-tech" whether it be true or otherwise, have to do with the topic of same-sex marriage?

I reckon one of the big sticking points is the state support given to married couples. 

Care to be more specific? There are no "tax-breaks" for married couples, no joint bank accounts, nothing special really, other than some "rights" with regards to medical issues.

Perhaps it's not just reverence for tradition . . .

I used to not care about what people do concerning their own lives--I still don't--but this constant beating over the head with gay agenda is slowly eroding my sympathy and support for the lgbt ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? community.

I wonder how you would have felt back in the '60s if people said this:

I do not care what people do with their own lives, but this constant beating over the head of the black agenda is slowly seroding my sympathy and support for the black community.

The problem with Japan is that the country doesn't like to have minorities and uncertainties in any situation. By their logic, having a minority or minority opinion implies that the majority could be imperfect or faulty, which causes a feeling of uncertainty. If there was a way of framing the law in a way that would increase harmony....Like joint tax filing, next of kin rights, right of medical access, things that wouldn't really cause a disruption, until they do.y

There are no "tax-breaks" for married couples, no joint bank accounts, nothing special really, other than some "rights" with regards to medical issues.

The spouse allowance - a sarariman with a non/low-earning spouse gets a tax exemption, ie pays less tax than a person with the same income but an earning spouse (said spouse meanwhile also pays tax at the single-person rate and is liable to pay their own health insurance, pension premiums, etc.)

The same single-income married couple also get cheaper health insurance and a free pension for the non-earning spouse.

I used to not care about what people do concerning their own lives--I still don't--but this constant beating over the head with gay agenda is slowly eroding my sympathy and support for the lgbt ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? community.

@Mr. Noidall, if your contingency on the support for LGBT people hangs on them being silent, shutting the hell up and never making any noise about the VERY REAL discrimination, pain and alienation they go through, then you were never sympathetic to begin with, and you never cared.

Threatening to stop being sympathetic, and then making mockery of LGBT+ by adding all those question marks, very childish I would say.

I wonder how you would have felt back in the '60s if people said this:

I do not care what people do with their own lives, but this constant beating over the head of the black agenda is slowly seroding my sympathy and support for the black community.

I am also tired of people hijacking the black struggle to fit their agenda. Centuries of slavery and jim crow do not even come close to not being able to come out of the closet. To conflate the two is highly wrong and offensive.

Reverence for tradition threatens same-sex marriage in Japan

Reading the air: Fear of change threatens same-sex marriage in Japan.

The right to marry is important. Often families of the deceased shut out the unmarried partner simply because they cannot tolerate and wish to hide the fact/shame of a LGBTQ relationship in the family.

Someone who is not a spouse does not have any legal right to spousal benefits. Also, as with hetero couples, unmarried partners have no right to jointly-acquired assets. They cannot make decisions regarding the health care or end-of-life or burial wishes for their partners. They cannot inherit pension income or jointly owned assets or even pets unless specific arrangements have been made.

if your contingency on the support for LGBT people hangs on them being silent

That's not what I mean. I don't expect lgbt people to be silent; but I don't want to hear them shouting into a bullhorn into another bullhorn that's directed into an amplifier. Your life should revolve around more than sexual identity. Sex is only a small part of life if you choose to look at the bigger picture. It seems to me that the lgbt community says: first I am queer, second I am human; when I think it should be the other way around.

Legal marriage for all of legal age.

Marriage itself needs an update in meaning, considering the crazy world we live in.

With normalized marriage, the LGBTQ2P activists will no longer be needed and we can go back to living our lives without the weird pedophiles increasing their say.

Civil partnerships would be a start. I am still not comfortable theologically with church weddings for same sex couples.

 Your life should revolve around more than sexual identity.

You tell homophobes that? Our sexual identity becomes a bigger part of us because homophobes, not because of us.

not being able to come out of the closet

It's also amazing how people blind and deaf you are to the overall struggles of gay people, as if it's just a thing that one needs to accept within themselves and then everything will be dandy. Please, it's not as homosexual persecution doesn't date back to hundreds and hundreds of years back. And it's not like concentration camps for homosexuals don't exist in modern world, though to be fair in less fortunate countries.

Why is it that the far-right posters on this board are so obsessed by sex? Sex, sex, sex and LGBT sex in particular. Why do they never shut up about it?

Your life should revolve around more than sexual identity.

And yet the vast majority of your posts are about LGBT sex. You can't have your cake and eat it; if you're as fed up with them shouting into a bullhorn (whatever that means) as you claim then why spend so much time obsessing about it?

Kohakuebisu and Cleo have it right. Unfortunately same-sex marriage has little chance though, no matter the rate of public acceptance, as long as the Nippon Kaigi neanderthals are in control of this country.

One thing that often gets forgotten in all the debates about LGBTQ is that married heterosexual couples are the foundation of society. Non heterosexuals should be treated equally in inheritance and tenancy contracts but granting them the same rights as heterosexual marriage could destroy the very foundation of healthy society.

If two consenting people love each other and all other prerequisites apply, of legal age, of distant enough relation and whatever other apply then lets be honest your objection is more about you than the couple.

As others have said people complain oh I have hear too much about it these "gays" and their "agenda", well stop objecting to them living their lives as they want, it has nothing really to do with you at all..

And... gay people will be gay and straight people will be straight.. because I hear a gay couple can get married does that make me for one second reevaluate my sexuality? Of course not, I didn't decide Im straight I just am.

Perhaps thou doth protest too much? Maybe you aren't quite so sure of your position on the sexuality spectrum yourself.

Oh but the kids, guess what kids don't care.. unless you make it hard its easy.

"Dad why does billy have two moms/dads? Oh well sometimes families are made up in different ways but Im sure they both care for Billy very much. "Hmm ok lets go play lego."

Oh its the end of the world and civilization, nope.. there have been gay people around forever, there always will be.

Many years ago, I have to admit I was a little bit ick about gay relationships but was fortunate enough to through work meet and work with several amazing gay people and meet their partners, they were loving partners and realized, not just as a declaration of love but in medical emergencies, taxation reasons, ability to get mortgages, benefits and all the other things married couples are able to get under the law they should be entitled to everything I am in a heterosexual relationship.

Over many discussions and laughs and tears I heard the stories of how they had been tormented by families, by others, by themselves just for being who they are and long journeys to accepting it.

This argument that marriage is owned by any particular belief system is a complete fabrication almost all societies throughout history have some version of marriage or recognition of a bonding of a pair of people.

This debate is really over, most people have accepted that now and instead focus their outrage on an even smaller and more marginalized group of transgender people instead.

Heres an idea how about worrying about what someone else gets up to in their bedroom with another consenting adult we try to work to make this world a bit better for everyone, especially when it does you no harm to you...

I think it is basically a different thing a man attracted to a woman and a man attracted to a man. I have not experienced palpitation of my heart before meeting a man.

At Bugle Boy, why do you care what other people do so much?

If a consenting adult couple (with all the other prerequisites) want to be in a marriage yeah, so what?

What harm does it do to you?

I can guess I would think many of your beliefs are outdated, ridiculous and plain wrong.. but Im not coming into your life making you change them, yes I can challenge them in this public arena but.. I would defend you to live your life the way you want and be as maximally free as we can be in respect to other peoples rights... why can't you do the same?

reverence for harmony that pervades high-tech Japan

A trip to the Ward Office where people register their marriages or partnerships, or a Bank where people pay for it will almost certainly expose the myth of high-tech Japan. Reams of paper, forms to fill out in triplicate, ink pads for personal seals, and a flurry of both inked stamps and revenue stamps on paper belong to the same age of the Meiji mindset that pervades people in government and the bureaucracy.

Another 400 years....

Where’s the shock in this article? Japan has always been at least a generation behind the rest of the world and in this case, it’s two generations. This is what happens when you have a country run by stone-headed old fellas who haven’t read a book in 50 years.

Civil partnerships would be a start. I am still not comfortable theologically with church weddings for same sex couples.

Depends on the sectarian beliefs of the particular church.

I get the sense that if there is money to be made in marrying same-sex couples, and/or the pews start to empty in response to outdated views on homosexuality, we could be in for quite a few ‘revelations’ and subsequent changes of heart from the churches.

I used to not care about what people do concerning their own lives--I still don't--but this constant beating over the head with gay agenda is slowly eroding my sympathy and support for the lgbt

"Gay agenda" here meaning their right marry? Not infiltrating your schools or workplaces, or making your children watch Brokeback Mountain, but marriage? That was the final line for you? How uppity of gays to go so far, polluting the public discourse with demands for basic human rights. And as others have said, as if they'll be earned by staying silent.

As strangerland mentions, these are the same people who would have been against any activism over the past century--suffragettes, civil rights or anti-war protesters, or union movements that arose at a time when companies treated labor like slaves.

It's the same simple battle repeated ad infinitum between two groups of people, those who believe in justice and equality for all and those who do not.

Why is it that the far-right posters on this board are so obsessed by sex? Sex, sex, sex and LGBT sex in particular. Why do they never shut up about it?

The Mencken quote always comes to mind:

Puritanism [early rightists] is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

@Alfie Noakes

Why is it that the far-right posters on this board are so obsessed by sex? Sex, sex, sex and LGBT sex in particular. Why do they never shut up about it?

You apparently have exempted yourself.

@itsonlyrocknroll

Civil partnerships would be a start. I am still not comfortable theologically with church weddings for same sex couples.

Yes to civil partnership. “Partner” is vastly superior to husband or wife (cf ON husband: “master of a house, tiller of the soil” and wife: OE “woman”).

As for church weddings, that’s up to the traditions of the congregation. In Japan they are not a substitute for civil registration.

@jcapan

It's the same simple battle repeated ad infinitum between two groups of people, those who believe in justice and equality for all and those who do not.

”Two” groups of people? Oh that the world were so simple. Simple explanations appeal to simple minds.

The spouse allowance - a sarariman with a non/low-earning spouse gets a tax exemption, ie pays less tax than a person with the same income but an earning spouse (said spouse meanwhile also pays tax at the single-person rate and is liable to pay their own health insurance, pension premiums, etc.)

The same single-income married couple also get cheaper health insurance and a free pension for the non-earning spouse.

Fair enough, you are right, my "spouse" works, so I honestly did not consider this. Thank you!

Thinking gay couples divorce less, are better because leading to open minded agenda, etc.

Not worse, not better.

Just more messy administrative management for all.

In the near future, some won't have any grandma or grandpa in their family...

Yes for respect, no to communities.

If marrying is about love only then why law forbids me to marry several women ? Answer that !

If marrying is about love only then why law forbids me to marry several women ? Answer that !

It is allowed in some cultures and there is an argument to be had that if all consent, there is no problem here. I think consent is the key.

That’s part of the reason why I find it difficult to object to giving consenting, law-abiding homosexual citizens the same marriage rights as heterosexual citizens.

Don't do it Japan, allowing this to happen will only follow the West down the path of degeneracy.

itsonlyrocknroll,

Why would it matter if you are comfortable?

Jimizo, it is difficult to overcome those sectarian beliefs over and above acceptance of same sex marriage and the practise, teaching and rules of the Catholic Church...

Mitoguitarman, yes shouldn't matter at all, especially since my opinion is based purely from a theological perspective.

Anonymous, my Catholic faith and upbringing struggles with the sanity of marriage over the current political environment devoid of debate.....That my beliefs leads or could be construed as bigoted.

Jimizo, it is difficult to overcome those sectarian beliefsover and above acceptance of same sex marriage and the practise, teaching and rules of the Catholic Church...

My point was that there are different sectarian beliefs. The Catholic Church doesn’t accept same-sex marriage but there are other sects which do accept it. I’d advise gay Christians to shop around.

As I said, I think changing views and the market will eventually see more and more churches having visitations from angels or whatever to tell them to be nicer to all of God’s children.

Empty pews can have that effect.

I used to not care about what people do concerning their own lives--I still don't--but this constant beating over the head with gay agenda is slowly eroding my sympathy and support for the lgbt 

For those of us who have survived this constant beating by the agenda, could you remind us what it says?

I thought that it just had one word: equality

Is that agenda so bad?

Passing laws about what people do in the bedroom? What a rediculous thing. It is like passing laws about burping or passing gas. We have had none of that in Japan.

It is apparently traditional to deny that same sex attractions exist, but denial can go on for only so long before it is overtaken by reality.

Passing laws about what people do in the bedroom? What a rediculous thing. It is like passing laws about burping or passing gas. We have had none of that in Japan.

Did you actually read the article? This is about equal marriage. The article makes clear that homosexuality is not illegal in Japan

You can love who you want, but the law should apply equally to all people.

You can't marry a relative, a minor, someone of the same gender or a mentally retarded person.

For once we agree - the law should apply equally to consenting adults who wish to marry and are not in the immediate family.

And as you correctly observe, there are a number of people you can't marry - like minors. However, a number of mentally disabled people do marry - although I note that you use the pejorative expression "retarded". While it may have escaped the moderator's delete key, I am glad that it was left in - it says so much about you. Although I never thought you would be a supporter of gay marriage given that you normally have an ultra conservative agenda

@BigYen is right.

The math doesn’t add up. Either that or it’s not a major electoral issue.

My guess is that it’s the latter: Most people support gay marriage, but not if it takes away from other issues they find more important.

It is apparently traditional to deny that same sex attractions exist, but denial can go on for only so long before it is overtaken by reality.

Maybe, but the individual does not have to recognize their existence or validity.

Societal order is the most fundamental aspect for the prosperity of a nation, and Japan is history's greatest example.  It is not a real question of tradition, but one of societal integrity and strength.  If young Japanese seek leftist globalism, then they should vacation in Europe and the US in order to witness this grand utopia.  For the Japanese people to willingly abandon their greatest cultural and societal asset in favor of "feel good" globalist policies like these would be monumentally foolish.

I like how some say "ok with consenting adults." The same sx marriage is a law just like consent and marriage. If you can change thar, you can change the other two. It would probably take another 20-30 years before society becomes accepting of pedosxuals as well. They're not even at the joking state yet, they're still in the persecution stage. These same stages were what the hmosxuals went through too.

I am also tired of people hijacking the black struggle to fit their agenda. Centuries of slavery and jim crow do not even come close to not being able to come out of the closet. To conflate the two is highly wrong and offensive.

Easy for you to say - you got your rights.

...and weren't the one who had to fight for them.

Easy for you to say - you got your rights.

We all have the same rights.

All people should enjoy equal opportunities.

We all have the same opportunity (in this regard)

Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Patricia Yarrow June 16 07:20 am JST

The Japanese Constitution needs to be updated to include extending equal rights to all who wish to marry. What's downstairs should have nothing to do with it. It's love!

Exactly. The Japanese constitution is too obsolete. It was drafted in 1946. And they used the dogmas of that time.

The most scandalous thing is that precisely the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. It is the one that is proposing to legalize homosexual marriage, with no intention of amending that constitution. Left-wing political parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party refuse to modernize that constitution. For them it is a document that has to be unalterable. And the worst thing is that they are blatantly lying to LGBT people by saying that they will legalize same-sex marriage, without changing the constitution. That's just not legally possible.

This is one of the reasons why they have such low election results. Because their proposals cannot be fulfilled if they do not modify the constitution first. Something they have already said they have no intention of doing. This is an issue that will have no solution. 

But they will still have the nerve to say that the blame lies with the LDP, and the entire faction of right-wing parties.

Making rights for homosexuals is fine but not at the expense of children born to a married couple.Of course, an adopted child of gay couple should be treated equally.

However, allocating resources to promulgate our species must be the paramount priority.

Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I’m free to marry someone of the sex to which I’m attracted. Do homosexuals have that right?

Making rights for homosexuals is fine but not at the expense of children born to a married couple.

What does this even mean? Children born of straight parents deserve more rights than homosexuals?! What? What happens if the child of a straight couple is homosexual, does (s)he get more or less rights?

Making rights

Let’s be clear, you don’t make human rights. They exist. Some people deny them to others. We are not talking about malign rights. We are taking about recognizing inherent rights that have been denied to a group of individuals due to the bigotry of societies polluted by religious ideals.

We need to stop denying rights. Not start “making” them.

We are not talking about malign rights.

Should be: We are not talking about making rights.

That's a weird auto-correct.

Marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime...not two men or two women or two men and one woman.

That's not correct. There are married homosexuals all over the world.

Rolf AndersonToday 03:01 am JST

The headline should have read “Reverence for marriage threatens same-sex marriage in Japan” since Japan still has a somewhat healthy marriage culture...unlike the States where no-fault divorce opened the door for “same-sex marriage,” unions which have nothing to do with marriage nor equality.

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage? Dude, it literally has "marriage" in its name. It's ONLY about marriage, about having the equal right to marry the person you love. What in the world do you think it could otherwise be about?

Marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime...not two men or two women or two men and one woman.

"for one lifetime"? Divorce is legal, so I really don't see that you have a point here.

And marriage is still an institution of equality since anyone with any sexual preference can marry whomever they love depending on that person’s age, familial relationship, sex, marital status, required documentation, required presence, and willingness to swear under oath.

It's interesting that straight people have completely redefined the concept of marriage. Married people can marry whom they chose or they can hire a matchmaker; they can live together, or they can have separate households; they can have one, two, many children or none; they can be monogamous or non-monogamous, they can get divorced and then they can re-marry as many times as they like.

But now that people want to include same-sex couples in all of this, certain people start screaming their heads off about marriage being a sacrosanct and unchangeable institution. Excuse me while I laugh. It's patently clear that you are just a bunch of homophobes. And dahling, homophobia is just SO 1990's. And I have to say, the madder you get and the louder you yell the more we know we are winning. :)

Who said marriage is limited to two people? Why are we discriminating against Muslims, Mormons and other polygamists who wish to have thier unions recognized. Do we not understand the pain they are enduring at having to 'stay in the closet', suffer outdated bigoted attitudes, etc. What business is it of ours who they love or what they do in the bedroom? They were born that way, thier sexuality is not thier choice.

So let's be fair and open minded and grant them marriage licenses too. After all 'love is love' right?

Let’s be clear, you don’t make human rights. They exist. Some people deny them to others.

They don't just exist. The only thing universal about morals and rights is that they are subjective--with the exception of incest, which has been documented in all human societies. So when you say equal rights for one group, there's always a compromise at the expense of another group. What's a right and what's not is always a human decision. Your pontificating of certain rights for homosexuals comes at the expense of rights for the religiously inclined. Then you'll say the religious are just dinosaurs out of touch, blah, blah, blah--but that's just more subjectivity. It's all like entropy.

Minority issue, but nevertheless one that seems to have public support and should therefore be debated.

Your pontificating of certain rights for homosexuals comes at the expense of rights for the religiously inclined.

Why? As long as the religious are allowed the right not to conduct same-sex marriages, their rights are not being infringed.

You do know there are some religious groups who have no problem with same-sex marriage, right? Don’t insult them by lumping them in with the dinosaurs.

Strangerland great job. I have been watching but you are saying it all.

The NO argument is undefecable and early on the "Left wing" agender was used, as being somewhat being negative? Seriously the hood on my Grand Master Dragon Clan hood suddenly shot up!

Who cares.? ( I Do) because it's just fair

Apparently God made us all in his own image, gay, straight and those bent well out of shape. So blame God let his creation live their lives without being ostasized.

or is that just to close to Jesus teaching about love one another?

Apparently God made us all in his own image, gay, straight and those bent well out of shape. So blame God let his creation live their lives without being ostasized.

God made Hitler, too. Not comparing Hitler to the lgbt community; I'm just saying, the "god made us all" argument is not a good one.

@Jimizo

Why? As long as the religious are allowed the right not to conduct same-sex marriages, their rights are not being infringed.

Then why are Christian wedding venues, bakers, florists, photographers etc being sued, harassed, forced to close etc because they are not interested in participating in LGBTQ weddings?

Note that these same people will offer their services to LGBTQ people for anything else.

So let's be fair and open minded and grant them marriage licenses too. After all 'love is love' right?

Well, we can deal with people who would like to exercise a preference next.

First lets deal with the people who are being restricted of basic human rights, mmmkay?

They don't just exist. The only thing universal about morals and rights is that they are subjective--with the exception of incest, which has been documented in all human societies.

Well, the world says you're wrong: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

So who should we believe? Some dude on the internet, or the the world?

Your pontificating of certain rights for homosexuals comes at the expense of rights for the religiously inclined.

The religious have a right to not be persecuted for their religion. They do not have a right to persecute others for their homosexuality.

And the ironic thing is that you were just trying to claim that rights don't exist. Now you're trying to claim religious rights.

You're all over the place.

Why? As long as the religious are allowed the right not to conduct same-sex marriages, their rights are not being infringed.

Then why are Christian wedding venues, bakers, florists, photographers etc being sued, harassed, forced to close etc because they are not interested in participating in LGBTQ weddings?

I think this is wrong and we can also talk about exclusion of gays by religious people which is also wrong ( I don’t have any time for the ‘we don’t discriminate against you, god does’ nonsense ), but this isn’t the main point.

The main point for me point is the government should not force religious groups to conduct same-sex weddings. The government should stay out of telling them what is morally acceptable ( although the government should get them to pay tax ). As I said, gay Christians can shop around these days and find less discriminatory religious groups who want to treat them as equal citizens. Many Christians hop around different sects which are competing for members and cash ( private jets don’t come cheap ), and I think those sects which do not want to treat all citizens equally may find the financial pinch in the future.

Give it a few decades and the market will ensure more liberal ‘interpretations’.

You can love who you want, but the law should apply equally to all people.

> You can't marry a relative, a minor, someone of the same gender or a mentally retarded person.

This is an idiotic argument. We could just change the law to allow people to marry those of whichever gender they want and the law would apply equally to all people. The sky would not fall on anyone's head. The Earth would continue to rotate on its axis. Literally nothing bad at all would happen.

I was recently transferred to Japan. I brought my legal husband with me, but solely because he doesn't have a vagina, we have to jump through some huge and costly hoops if I want to keep my job and also my husband with me, and have him have legal status in this country. We are together 30 years, and have been legally married for five. In order for him to get a "special designated activities" visa (meaning a non-standard spousal visa) that would not require him to work or study as a condition of remaining in the country (like any other spouse), we had to provide 30 years of photos of us together and with each other's families, copy of our marriage license, a complete history of our relationship, complete work history for the duration we were together, evidence of our living together by supplying copies of our house deed and bank statements and bills, letters from many family members and our lawyer, etc. He is also not allowed to leave Japan while the visa is being applied for; God forbid a family member dies and he has to go back home to attend to family matters--and if he does, we have to start the process all over again. No guarantee on how long this tedious process will take either. All because he doesn't have a vagina. If he were a woman, I'm sure only a fraction of the information would have been required. We are both upstanding members of society with no criminal background. Yet, I'm not asking for any special treatment, only that he be recognized and treated like the spouse he is, regardless of what plumbing he may have been born with. So, for anyone who thinks this is "in your face", or forcing you to accept my lifestyle, I'm sorry for you. I'm just asking to be able to work and live in Japan with my spouse, and be given all the same access that my heterosexual coworkers are entitled to.

Reference for tradition is a good thing, and I have yet to see a good argument for the state sanctioning 2 people of the same as a "marriage". If you want the state to certify unusual combinations of people, how about starting with polygamy? That one actually has a long historical tradition in many cultures. 2 people of the same sex have not, for obvious reasons.

@Strangerland

Me:

So let's be fair and open minded and grant them marriage licenses too. After all 'love is love' right?

You:

Well, we can deal with people who would like to exercise a preference next.

First lets deal with the people who are being restricted of basic human rights, mmmkay?

Deal with them next?

You are suggesting discrimination against polygamists, Mormons, and Muslims to be relegated to the back of the line. Are LGBTQ+ unions superior to theirs? Aren't these other groups being denied their basic human rights?

You see where this is going. If we grant marriage licenses to members of the LGBTQ+ community on the basis of 'equality'. 'human rights' etc then we have no basis to 'discriminate' against polygamists. This would include 'marriages' of any number of members.

Then of course there are those who wish to have their incestuous unions legalized. (father/daughter, brother/sister, etc). And then those who............etc, etc.

Do you agree with granted these groups their human rights to marriage?

I’ve noticed an even greater than average amount of name calling in the posts after this article. I’ve been wondering why. By coincidence I read an article today entitled “America’s White Saviors” in TABLETMAG.COM that goes some way in explaining it. Most interesting. An excerpt:

“In a recent Vox article based partly on the dissertation research I’ve [Zach Goldberg?] been doing as a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Georgia State University, Matthew Yglesias described this ongoing transformation as “The Great Awokening.”

You see where this is going. If we grant marriage licenses to members of the LGBTQ+ community on the basis of 'equality'. 'human rights' etc then we have no basis to 'discriminate' against polygamists. This would include 'marriages' of any number of members.

Spot on. I have seen lots of emotional huffing and puffing, when bringing up this point, but not a logical answer. Fact is, polygamy does have a long historical tradition, and it is actually a working model to set up a family (although not one I agree on). Two people of the same sex have no historical precedence, for obvious reasons.

@WilliB

You see where this is going. If we grant marriage licenses to members of the LGBTQ+ community on the basis of 'equality'. 'human rights' etc then we have no basis to 'discriminate' against polygamists. This would include 'marriages' of any number of members.

Spot on. I have seen lots of emotional huffing and puffing, when bringing up this point, but not a logical answer. Fact is, polygamy does have a long historical tradition, and it is actually a working model to set up a family (although not one I agree on). Two people of the same sex have no historical precedence, for obvious reasons.

Those advocating LGBTQ+ marriage on the basis of equality and non discrimination, however sincere they might be, just seem to be unable to admit that it logically follows that they must then agree to polygamist marriages of any number, incestuous marriages and every other combination imaginable because to oppose such unions will be 'discriminatory, bigoted, etc.

Spot on. I have seen lots of emotional huffing and puffing, when bringing up this point, but not a logical answer. Fact is, polygamy does have a long historical tradition, and it is actually a working model to set up a family (although not one I agree on). Two people of the same sex have no historical precedence, for obvious reasons.

Polygamy isn't a workable model and creates a lot of problems which aren't posed by same sex marriage. The biggest is that polygamy in almost every society where it does exist is based on a social structure in which one man has multiple wives (rather than one woman having multiple husbands). In addition to gender equality concerns, this also introduces inherent instabilities into societies - wealthy older men are able to monopolize the available female population by marrying large numbers of them, creating an underclass of younger and poorer males who have no realistic options of ever marrying because there aren't enough potential female partners left. The societies created by fundamentalist Mormon communities which have practiced polygamy have all had this problem and controlling the conflict it engenders is likely one of the reasons most (not all of course) major religions favored monogamy historically.

Same sex marriage doesn't create any external problems for society as a whole like that.

@rainyday

Polygamy isn't a workable model and creates a lot of problems which aren't posed by same sex marriage. The biggest is that polygamy in almost every society where it does exist is based on a social structure in which one man has multiple wives (rather than one woman having multiple husbands). In addition to gender equality concerns, this also introduces inherent instabilities into societies - wealthy older men are able to monopolize the available female population by marrying large numbers of them, creating an underclass of younger and poorer males who have no realistic options of ever marrying because there aren't enough potential female partners left. The societies created by fundamentalist Mormon communities which have practiced polygamy have all had this problem and controlling the conflict it engenders is likely one of the reasons most (not all of course) major religions favored monogamy historically.

Same sex marriage doesn't create any external problems for society as a whole like that.

If the basis for agreeing to gay marriage is 'equality and non discrimination', then you must also agree to the demands of recognition by polygamists, incestuous couples/throuples/ quadrouples, etc, etc regardless of your views about them. Otherwise they will rightly accuse you of discrimination, bigotry and hatefulness. You might also be socially shunned for your 'bigoted and outdated views', lose your job for expressing them, and legally punished for any refusing to serve them in any business venture you happen to engage in.

Nothing personal towards you. Just outlining the reality of where this is all going.

Cheers.

If the basis for agreeing to gay marriage is 'equality and non discrimination', then you must also agree to the demands of recognition by polygamists, incestuous couples/throuples/ quadrouples, etc, etc regardless of your views about them. Otherwise they will rightly accuse you of discrimination, bigotry and hatefulness. You might also be socially shunned for your 'bigoted and outdated views', lose your job for expressing them, and legally punished for any refusing to serve them in any business venture you happen to engage in.

Did I base my argument on anything like that? No.

I'm not talking about "equality and non discrimination", etc.

Refusing to recognize polygamy I understand based on the concerns I listed above: it creates a fundamentally unstable social structure. I don't see any similar problems posed by same sex marriage and therefore I don't see the need to prevent same sex couples from getting married. Is there an actual problem that barring people of the same sex is meant to solve? I haven't seen anyone making a convincing argument that there is and thus remain unpersuaded.

@rainyday

My point was that, to the other groups of people who seek marriage recognition, your or my opinion means absolutely nothing. They will claim 'bigotry, discrimination and hatred, no matter what you or I think or say. They will fight for 'equality' in the courts on the basis that limiting marriage to two people, or certain combinations is 'discriminatory'.

My point was that, to the other groups of people who seek marriage recognition, your or my opinion means absolutely nothing. They will claim 'bigotry, discrimination and hatred, no matter what you or I think or say. They will fight for 'equality' in the courts on the basis that limiting marriage to two people, or certain combinations is 'discriminatory'.

So?

The legal system may force them to frame their arguments in court in a given way, and they may also strongly internalize those beliefs themselves, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that barring them from getting married in the first place makes no sense at all.

@rainyday

but that doesn't change the underlying fact that barring them from getting married in the first place makes no sense at all.

Does this mean that you think that barring polygamist unions (of any number), incestuous unions (of any number), and every other combination of unions makes no sense?

Does this mean that you think that barring polygamist unions (of any number), incestuous unions (of any number), and every other combination of unions makes no sense?

No. I already explained that I understand the public policy underpinning barring polygamists from getting married. Let me reiterate:

Polygamy isn't a workable model and creates a lot of problems which aren't posed by same sex marriage. The biggest is that polygamy in almost every society where it does exist is based on a social structure in which one man has multiple wives (rather than one woman having multiple husbands). In addition to gender equality concerns, this also introduces inherent instabilities into societies - wealthy older men are able to monopolize the available female population by marrying large numbers of them, creating an underclass of younger and poorer males who have no realistic options of ever marrying because there aren't enough potential female partners left. The societies created by fundamentalist Mormon communities which have practiced polygamy have all had this problem and controlling the conflict it engenders is likely one of the reasons most (not all of course) major religions favored monogamy historically.

But we aren't talking about polygamous marriages, the article is about same sex marriages. I still haven't seen a convincing argument made in favor of banning them, all I'm getting is an attempt to change the conversation to the topic of polygamy. Its not a convincing argument in favor of banning same sex marriage.

@rainyday

Thanks for clarifying......

However my point remains. Gay marriage is getting approved on the basis of 'equality and non discrimination'. Therefore, it logically follows that we thus cannot deny marriage licenses to any combination that demands it and your or my opinion means nothing.

But we aren't talking about polygamous marriages,

In considering weather to legalize gay marriage we must consider the obvious ramifications.

Again, nothing against you personally. Just stating the reality of the situation.

Cheers.

Reverence for tradition kept bans on interracial marriages and slavery. When will the oppression stop?

Then why are Christian wedding venues, bakers, florists, photographers etc being sued, harassed, forced to close etc because they are not interested in participating in LGBTQ weddings?

Because they are in jurisdictions with anti-discrimination laws about who businesses may refuse to serve.