In landmark ruling, Japanese court says same-sex marriage ban 'unconstitutional'

Good. A step in the right direction.

While a new law will be needed before same-sex marriages can actually take place

Look for the Dinosaurs that make up the Diet to drag their feet as long as possible, possibly citing the negative effect on pregnancy rates.

Um, news flash...... not recognizing Gay Marriage is not going to force homosexual men and women to engage in hetero-sexual relations resulting in conception.

It's far past time for this recognition. While lacking the overt homophobia of my home state, Japan needs to make sure that partners can inherit property, get custody of shared children, and not for nothing, be recognized at human beings engaged in a loving committed relationship.

I'd be interested to know precisely why this was deemed to be unconstitutional but I'm even more looking forward to the wailing from the reactionary right.

A very positive outcome - finally, we can have real hope that this will be addressed in a higher court.

Love wins!

Look for the Dinosaurs that make up the Diet to drag their feet as long as possible, possibly citing the negative effect on pregnancy rates.

Of course! Don't forget their needs to be 'studies' and such, especially concerning "Japanese" same sex couples. A new law like this can't be hastily pushed through. Law makers would really be opening a huge can of worms if two men with children divorced. Who would get custody?

In here, court saying is one thing, but changing situation is completely different thing. If I am correct, such ruling happened about 10 years ago somewhere in Osaka or Hyogo (that area if I am not mistaken) and nothing has changed.

Having people jump over obstacles just to be happy is ridiculous in a society in 2020s. Let's legalise it, I don't see a reason why is it such a fuss and problem today. It wont hurt anyone if two adult people marry. And if "traditional family" quoters will be in majority in here, then let's make homosexuality illegal. Ridiculous, eh? Because right now, it seems like we are in some kind of a vacuum. On one hand, "homosexual sex has been legal in Japan since 1880" and even some old people are fine with homosexually oriented people, on the other hand there is still a big stigma in here and we cannot let them marry.

Love does not recognize the constitution or any court rulings, the LGBT community is steaming ahead with it's life style with or without the constitution.

A higher court.

Its a good step, but I'm a bit cautious in my enthusiasm. The Supreme Court, which this and similar cases will likely work their way up to, is extremely conservative, both in its political outlook and in its almost total refusal to find any legislation unconstitutional. I have trouble envisaging a Supreme Court decision that requires the government to recognize same sex marriage without the government having legislated that itself, its just not the way this Court works. I say this as a criticism of the Court, not because I agree with its stance (which leads it to making some ludicrous decisions).

In terms of the law, the article doesn't say but I presume it was declared unconstitutional due to a violation of Art. 14, which guarantees equality before the law and is the usual constitutional provision used to challenge discriminatory laws.

I have little doubt that this will be struck down on appeal (if the govt even bothers with an appeal). The Japanese constitution is quite unambiguous about marriage being between 'both sexes', meaning a man and a woman. Any change would require a constitutional amendment.

Don't rush to be super-happy. As an appeal the case will probably be brought to a high court, and I guess it would go further to the Supreme Court, for constitunality is at stake.

The verdict is a remarkable and interesting. Some law (especially textualist) scholars may find it's an wild interpretation of Article 24 of the Constitution which states "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes." Here come similar constitutional issues and amendament drives as we've been rather familiar with the "pacifist" Article 9 regarding full renouncment of arms, and decades-old debate over the constutionality of the Self Defense Forces.

Don't get me wrong, I am supportive for the LGBT movement and socioculturally diverse and inclusive society. At the same time I opt for constitutional reforms to ensure legality.

Details, as reported elsewhere...

"In the landmark ruling, Presiding Judge Tomoko Takebe sided with the couples who claimed the government was violating Article 14 of the Constitution that ensures the right to equality, describing as "discriminatory" the government's failure to implement legal measures to offer "even a degree" of marital benefits to same-sex couples."

This is so exciting.

I have been with my Japanese partner for three years, we dream of the day we can marry and even contemplate doing so in America.

My partners brother got married to a woman within 6 months of meeting, receives support from both families, living a good life. My partner remains closeted to close family and I have only met the family once in 3 years of our relationship.

and also have no parental rights over their partners' children

There are parental rights in Japan?! Since when?

Still find it amazing that no Ikumen dads have appealed about that in the past 10 years or so since Japanese dads started taking an interest in their kids.

Supreme court will strike this down as they do with everything that might change anything.

I have little doubt that this will be struck down on appeal (if the govt even bothers with an appeal). The Japanese constitution is quite unambiguous about marriage being between 'both sexes', meaning a man and a woman. Any change would require a constitutional amendment.

I agree that its likely the Supreme Court will overturn it, but I disagree about the Constitution being unambiguous. Article 24 doesn't actually say marriage has to be between both sexes. It says:

Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.

Clearly this presumes that marriage is between a husband and wife, but legally that isn't the same as requiring that it be between members of the opposite sex. The purpose of this provision was to establish equality of the sexes in family law, which before the war had more or less completely subjugated women to their husbands. Allowing same sex marriage would not pose a threat to that, nor would it necessarily violate the actual wording of the provision - which bans marriage without mutual consent of both sexes (same sex marriage would not involve marriage without consent of either sex, nor would it infringe the equal rights of any husbands or wives).

This is just kind of academic though, in practice the constitution means whatever the Cabinet says it means and the Supreme Court will go along with it. For the moment, the Cabinet says it means no same sex marriage. Which is stupid, but also the political reality in Japan today.

Wow. I didn’t think this would happen yet. A big step forward in the right direction.

It will be turned over at a higher court level, bigotry again will win over intelligence. And that's after a panel of "experts" have talked about it for a year. It's Japan.

There are laws on the books here banning categories of discrimination in employment and housing.

Good luck ever having them enforced when people are turned down for employment by a glance at a picture or real estate agencies suddenly find out there are no places available in your area.

@Mark_McCracken

Very interesting. Based on that more detailed Kyodo news article, the headline above might be inaccurate. It appears that the court did not rule that failing to recognise same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. On the contrary, the court upheld that Art. 24 only allows marriages between men and women and that this is entirely constitutional.

What seems to have been deemed unconstitutional is the additional benefits and preferential treatment extended only to married couples. Extending the same benefits through registration or civil unions would remedy the situation without needing a constitutional amendment.

@rainyday

Yes, you can interpret it in a number of ways but it's always been understood to mean man and woman. I think you'd probably agree that the Diet had no intention of creating same-sex marriages when the constitution was adopted in 1947.

I'm almost 40. I first met my partner in junior high and we have been together since high school in the 1990s. so like 20 some years. We'd really like to get married.

This is just the District Court. It will be appealed and go eventually to the Supreme Court, who will decide the ban is constitutional. This happens all the time with regional decisions.

Damned, they have to set the priorities to support the millions of normal partnerships first and with the same strong engagement. After that, those very special wishes out of all the niches can be considered, not before.

Welcome to the 21st century...

Yes make Japan seem behind the times.

But this little part seems to have been overlooked.

While homosexual sex has been legal in Japan since 1880,

Now look up when homosexuality was made legal in western countries. Not until the mid 20th century and in the USA not until 2003 did it finally become fully legal in the entire country.

So ok in some things Japan can be slow but legally recognising that homosexuality was something that exist and shouldn't be illegal nearly 100 years before the west needs to be acknowledged.

@rainyday

Yes, you can interpret it in a number of ways but it's always been understood to mean man and woman. I think you'd probably agree that the Diet had no intention of creating same-sex marriages when the constitution was adopted in 1947.

Yup, but they also didn’t intend it to ban same sex marriage either (undoubtedly they didn’t even consider that a possibility at the time).

Also, the mere fact that the government has interpreted it one way for a long time doesn’t mean it is correct or should continue to be interpreted that way. In fact the Cabinet often changes its interpretation of other Constitutional provisions in line with changing times, I don’t see a compelling argument for why it should continue clinging to this one.

It is interesting to see the way societies worked.

While in Japan homosexuality was legal but society discriminated.

The the west many prominent artists and writers were seen by society as acceptable but arrested for being homosexual

Good news.

Great courageous move!

Great news, but there is no way I can afford a wedding and my friends and family can’t visit japan these times.

Good.

I agree with this ruling but I think it's a bit premature to call it a landmark. Only time will tell.

Rather than amateur speculation on how to interpret the constitution, I will simply point out that as former PM Abe repeatedly told us, it is perfectly possible to change it.

Good

As it was already said, higher court and/or supreme court will be against. Japan do not accept basic rights for hetero couple in other matters, then less for homosexuals....

Bravo. A crack in the wall that will widen over time.

This is good news, indeed! And not just for the LGBTQ community, but all Japanese citizens. Japan is a highly progressive society in some ways, yet it lags far behind in others.

fair play. what happens between 2 people is no other people's business.

not my thing personally, but the right decision.

Good news indeed. I even thumbed up Bass.

Too old way of thinking.

"In the landmark ruling, Presiding Judge Tomoko Takebe sided with the couples who claimed the government was violating Article 14 of the Constitution that ensures the right to equality, describing as "discriminatory" the government's failure to implement legal measures to offer "even a degree" of marital benefits to same-sex couples."

Though plausible, a dispute still remains as to why, on what legal grounds the district judge outweighs Article 14th over the 24th adressing that the marriage shall be made by both sexes and their consent. A wild interpretation above originalism could ruin the legitimacy of law.

I see liberal reformsts and LGBT supporters rather hesitant on any constitutional ammendament, mostly because they fear that such might pave the way for another amendament drive, namely on Article 9, pushed by the conservatives (but meanwhile, the hardline conservatists don't want any constitutional reform regarding the same sex marriage) Things are politically in charge yet inconsistent on both sides.

While accepting the same sex marriage, I also urge for quick legislative responses to the court verdict. Special ordinances have been made for LGBT couples in seveal local levels, yet they are still ad hoc and subject to lawsuits over constitutionality if there is no state-level backing and legality. The Constitution is NOT a sacred text like Bible or Koran. It deserves to be upgraded.

@rainyday

Yup, but they also didn’t intend it to ban same sex marriage either (undoubtedly they didn’t even consider that a possibility at the time).

Perhaps they didn't intend to ban recognition of same-sex couples and equal treatment for all, but by constitutionally defining *'**marriage (婚姻)' as being between a husband and a wife, they clearly intended to make it exclusionary. Without a constitutional amendment I can't see how there can be Article 24 'marriage*s' in Japan. Obviously they can create something else like civil unions to offer other same-sex couples the same benefits that married couples enjoy.

In fact the Cabinet often changes its interpretation of other Constitutional provisions in line with changing times, I don’t see a compelling argument for why it should continue clinging to this one.

Yes, but those reinterpretations are always open to challenges. The reason Article 9 can be reinterpreted is because it's so much more ambiguous and flexible than the text in Article 24. If the government were to unilaterally redefine 'marriage' to include same-sex couples you would likely see rulings declaring it unconstitutional.

Don’t get your hopes up. The government will appeal the ruling and it will be overturned at a high court. The “unprecedented” district court decision was nothing but a grand stand play by the liberal female chief judge.

Disappointing news.

This will be overturned at Japan's supreme court.

I mean, it's the same court that won't allow separate surname for married women.

While Japanese law is considered relatively liberal by Asian standards, social attitudes have kept the LGBT community largely invisible in the world's third largest economy.

With homosexual role models on tv variety shows just about every night I wonder if the person who wrote this article even lives in Japan. Homosexuality has been very open in Japan regardless of how conservative people believe the nation to be.

@Reckless

Isn't Taiwan way ahead in this regard?

Yes, but Taiwan is a liberal free democracy.

Japan isn't.

While homosexual sex has been legal in Japan since 1880, social stigma means many have yet to come out even to their families.

The wheels turn slowly around here. Japan legalises gay sexual relations in 1880 but still refuse to recognise it as a legitimate marriage over 140 years later.

You watch the old fuddy-duddies and bigots appeal this to the High court etc.

which could take some time in socially conservative Japan -

Let's get this right here for once. Socially conservative POLITICIANS who dont see any need to change the status quo.

These writers underestimate the ability of the Japanese public to accept new things, when it comes from within their own.

Want proof about "socially conservative" being BS... Love Hotel's and Soaplands! There are plenty more to debunk this as well!

This is about letting people happy and not about sex. There use to be laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

This is about letting people happy and not about sex. There use to be laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

I get your point but technically speaking- your sexuality is pretty much based on who you have sex with.

There is nothing that says people have to be married to be happy. In fact, many people are now delaying marriage and are more and more deciding against it altogether. Just pass a simple law that allows everyone who is not married the ability to name a person to inherit their wealth and visit them in the hospital. That would not only benefit homosexual couples but unmarried heterosexual ones as well. That’s called a win-win. That would bring about much more happiness than a “gay marriage” court decision.

@Reckless: Also I personally know persons who were in heterosexual relations then came out as homosexual which clearly suggests that the genes can be carried on in normal childbirth from the first relationship.

People are not born gay. For bi-sexuals, their sexually is on a spectrum. But these folks are a small minority of the population and will remain so as-long-as Darwinism is in effect.

WolfpackToday 06:46 am JST

People are not born gay. For bi-sexuals, their sexually is on a spectrum. But these folks are a small minority of the population and will remain so as-long-as Darwinism is in effect.

People most certainly are born gay. It's laughable to say that people can suddenly "become" gay.

You can relax. No matter how much gay porn you watch, you won't turn gay if you already aren't gay. So enjoy!

WolfpackToday 12:12 am JST

With homosexual role models on tv variety shows just about every night I wonder if the person who wrote this article even lives in Japan. Homosexuality has been very open in Japan regardless of how conservative people believe the nation to be.

Well, I've not only lived in Japan for three decades, I'm also LGBTQIA. I can tell you that the author of this article is correct: Japan is extremely conservative when it comes to homosexuality. Most of my friends are not out to their parents, and very very few people can be out at work. In fact, many of my friends aren't even out to their friends who aren't gay. They worry too much about rejection, and rightfully so. People treat you differently. You can be fired from your job. Your parents might even reject you and kick you out of the house. You lose friends. And if you dare openly express affection for a partner in public, in the very same way heterosexuals do for their partner, you will be started at and insulted.

I have also had numerous conversations with Japanese people who have said to me, "There aren't any gay people in Japan." And "I think lesbians just need to find a boyfriend." Clearly, there are a lot of ignorant people.

There are even people who still think one somehow "becomes" gay, seemingly by osmosis! Can you imagine someone thinking that people "turn gay" in this day and age, when there is plenty of information about the genetic component of homosexuality available online?

But the situation in Japan has definitely improved over the past five or six years. For one thing, the Tokyo Rainbow Pride event has started up again after quite a long hiatus. More and more people, particularly young people, attend to support their LGBTQIA friends and family. It has been slowly gaining support. And the push for marriage rights has resulted in the stories of gay couples being told, which of course brings attention and awareness. Polls show that just under 50% of Japanese people are in favor of marriage rights. That number hopefully will continue to grow, because once there is a clear majority in favor of marriage rights the government will be pressured to take action.

No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and the gender confused, the issue is not discrimination. It is marriage itself.

In this type of debate there are always those who try to bracket gay marriage with paedophilia and incest, either subtly or not so subtly.

I'm almost 40. I first met my partner in junior high and we have been together since high school in the 1990s. so like 20 some years. We'd really like to get married.

5( +16 / -11 )

I wish you the best of luck, but you can see the numbers who clearly do not want you to be able to marry who you want to marry. Prejudice runs deep.

With homosexual role models on tv variety shows just about every night I wonder if the person who wrote this article even lives in Japan. Homosexuality has been very open in Japan regardless of how conservative people believe the nation to be.

What role models are you referring to, "Hard Gay"? I agree there are more than there were, but those on TV variety shows are often really exaggerated examples that kind of serve to make straights feel more comfortable, sort of the way they seem to prefer foreigners who seem stereotypically foreign. When people who run bars in Ni-chome aren't even out to their own families, and many long-term couples prefer not to be out in their companies, I'd say it's a socially conservative country.

Ah_soToday  08:54 am JST

No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and the gender confused, the issue is not discrimination. It is marriage itself.

In this type of debate there are always those who try to bracket gay marriage with paedophilia and incest, either subtly or not so subtly.

Most gay people are not pedos or rapists, at least any more than straight folks are. The gay marriage legalization caused a tremendous stink in America but looking at Melissa Ethridge's example told me the biggest reason why I thought it would be legalized - LAWYERS.

I remember the skits of the teenage Ruthie, a girl with two gay dads - Hank Azaria and Dan Catellanetta on the Tracy Ullman Show and nobody made a fuss of it then. Also in the late 80s there was 'My Two Dads' about a girl in custody of her father and uncle (no man romance).

Have gay marriages in America destroyed the 'American Nuclear WASP Conservative "Christian" "Family Values" Leave-It-To-Beaver Family'? No. That's because it never truly existed in the first place.

girl_in_tokyoToday  07:36 am JST

WolfpackToday 12:12 am JST

With homosexual role models on tv variety shows just about every night I wonder if the person who wrote this article even lives in Japan. Homosexuality has been very open in Japan regardless of how conservative people believe the nation to be.

Well, I've not only lived in Japan for three decades, I'm also LGBTQIA. I can tell you that the author of this article is correct: Japan is extremely conservative when it comes to homosexuality. Most of my friends are not out to their parents, and very very few people can be out at work. In fact, many of my friends aren't even out to their friends who aren't gay. They worry too much about rejection, and rightfully so. People treat you differently. You can be fired from your job. Your parents might even reject you and kick you out of the house. You lose friends. And if you dare openly express affection for a partner in public, in the very same way heterosexuals do for their partner, you will be started at and insulted.

I have also had numerous conversations with Japanese people who have said to me, "There aren't any gay people in Japan." And "I think lesbians just need to find a boyfriend." Clearly, there are a lot of ignorant people.

There are even people who still think one somehow "becomes" gay, seemingly by osmosis! Can you imagine someone thinking that people "turn gay" in this day and age, when there is plenty of information about the genetic component of homosexuality available online?

I'm straight but I'm not stupid. I don't understand homosexual attractions because I don't have them but I do know it does exist. Some animal species like chimps, cows, giraffes do have gay minorities just like people and that shows that it's a natural thing and not a matter of choosing.

Besides, how could anyone 'choose to be gay' knowing that they get treated like that Matthew guy (can't remember his last name, it's not 'Sweet'). And nobody deserves to be treated that way, nobody.

Every nation and society in every era of history has had gay/lesbian/bi people. Even today there are people who think 'that gay boy needs to be set up with a hooker or he needs a GF' and even some churches have this 'gay conversion therapy' which is a total crock of crap.

And if you dare openly express affection for a partner in public, in the very same way heterosexuals do for their partner, you will be started at and insulted.

At an Adam Ant show I attended in 2013 I saw two gay men holding hands and they looked at me, scared. I motioned that I wasn't going to beat them up. So they kissed. I didn't come to the arena to give anybody trouble, I came to rock'n'roll and have a good time. And at a Cheap Trick show I ran into this engineer I remember from college and he was with his BF. Whaddaya know? We were all there to rock out, what else matters?

As a straight 'outside observer' I think the GLBT community should have PRIDE in the achievements they've made, esp. by proving that most of them are not the stereotyprd monsters we've been told they are.

Ah_soToday  08:57 am JST

I'm almost 40. I first met my partner in junior high and we have been together since high school in the 1990s. so like 20 some years. We'd really like to get married.

I wish you the best of luck, but you can see the numbers who clearly do not want you to be able to marry who you want to marry. Prejudice runs deep.

Yes prejudice does run deep. There's plenty of people in America who don't want you to marry a perdon of a certain race, color, ethnicity, religion or even hair color.

gokai_wo_maneku I'm almost 40. I first met my partner in junior high and we have been together since high school in the 1990s. so like 20 some years. We'd really like to get married.

And if you've been together that long that shows solid your love is, doesn't it?

Why is it your business who can get married or why? As long as it is two consenting adults it is not your problem. There are a lot of people today who oppose Europeans descent marrying Asian descent. Then you throw the Christian bible in their face.

@girl_in_tokyo: There are even people who still think one somehow "becomes" gay, seemingly by osmosis! Can you imagine someone thinking that people "turn gay"

The latest social research says that sexuality is a spectrum. According to this research anyone is susceptible to becoming homosexual or straight or in between at any time in their lives. That conflicts with the idea that people are born gay. Which are we to believe is true?

Well, I've not only lived in Japan for three decades, I'm also LGBTQIA. 

It’s not possible to be all of these at once.

Japan is extremely conservative when it comes to homosexuality.

From my experience Japanese are generally conscious of differences of any kind - not just of sexuality. Any expat living in Japan knows that. There is pushback over those militating for special treatment for sure. It’s hard to be different in many many ways. I do see some Japanese becoming in your face activists for their causes but these are relatively small bands of the committed. There are many areas in big cities in Japan that cater to alternative sexual lifestyles- no one is seeking to close them down. People know that homosexuality is present in society- they just seem to prefer that people keep their differences to themselves.

Rolf Anderson Mar. 17 09:32 pm JST

False. Sexual orientation is fluid and people move up and down the scale.

Really? Because by that logic, you could very easily decide to be gay. Why don't you try it and see if your sexuality really is fluid? Because if you can't be attracted to men no matter how hard you try, then I think that provides pretty good evidence that sexuality is not fluid for everyone.

True. However, it is justified discrimination. In other words, it discriminating between the proper use of a vital social institution, marriage, and a false one, same-sex unions.

Discrimination means "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability." In this sense, discrimination is never justified - it is prejudicial, illogical, unreasonable, and bigoted.

False. The rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are shared by all Japanese citizens equally. 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.

I see this argument a lot - everyone can get married! You just have to marry someone of the opposite sex! Therefore marriage is for everyone!

May I remind you and others who make this illogical argument that people are lobbying for the right to marry the person they love. This is a fundamental human right.

No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and the gender confused, the issue is not discrimination. It is marriage itself.

This reminds me of landlords who say "no pets, no foreigners" because obviously, these two things are equal.

I would hope that in 2021 you would know better than trying to equate homosexuality, transgenderism, or even polygamy with pedophilia and incest. Sir, you really are just a very unpleasant person. Reading this makes me wonder what other types of bigotry you harbor.

girl_in_tokyo

I would hope that in 2021 you would know better than trying to equate homosexuality, transgenderism, or even polygamy with pedophilia and incest. Sir, you really are just a very unpleasant person. Reading this makes me wonder what other types of bigotry you harbor.

Most gay people are not pedos or incestuous. Pedophiles and incestmongers are all SCUM - whether they are gay or straight (ahem, 'Mr. Chosen One'). Sexual orientation has nothing to do with such ugly activity. Guess what? There's gays who don't like gay porn. And there's gays who believe in God too.

And gays have contributed greatly to mankind. Supergenius Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind. And I think we've all been entertained by gays whether we know they are or not.

There are even people who still think one somehow "becomes" gay, seemingly by osmosis! Can you imagine someone thinking that people "turn gay" in this day and age, when there is plenty of information about the genetic component of homosexuality available online?

I grew up listening to gay rockers, not knowingly and they didn't make me (or the fellow band members 'turn gay'. I grew up listening to REM, Judas Priest, Kinks, Culture Club, Jermaine Stewart and I didn't 'turn out gay or bi'.

I have seen a number of gay rockers too. All the B-52s except one are gay, I've also seen Bob Mould, Village People, others. I don't care, if I like the music what else matters?

Then you got these numbnuts who 'think' that male singers who can sing *falsetto*** (or maybe sport glam getup or long hair, say) must be 'gay'. You know, guys like Tiny Tim, Kevin Cronin of REO Speedwagon, Adam Ant, Mick Jagger, Prince, Phil Collins, Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran, Bono of U2, etc. who are** heterosexual. Ignorant boors with opinions like that need to be avoided. Steer light-years away from them.

KniknaknokkaerToday 01:46 pm JST

Oh lord this is getting absurd now, let's just all be ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and be done with it.

Do we really need this kind of inane sarcastic remark? I don't think it adds anything to the discussion.

Given Japan's dire demographic situation, I think this would be a negative for the country.

There needs to be some sort of arrangement around property rights of same-sex couples, but marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman. The relationship of two men and two women can never be equal to that of me and my wife, given that we share a biological child, something same-sex couples cannot do.

The relationship of two men and two women can never be equal to that of me and my wife, given that we share a biological child, 

Are married heterosexual couples with no children, or with adopted children, in a relationship not equal to yours?

AkulaToday 04:19 pm JST

Given Japan's dire demographic situation, I think this would be a negative for the country.

So, you mean, if homosexual marriages were legal in here, less heterosexual people will marry and have less children (therefore)? Ban or legalising homosexual marriages will not cause here being more or less heterosexual marriages.

This is completely ridiculous claim.

"people are lobbying for the right to marry the person they love. This is a fundamental human right."

Nope. There's not a single legal system in human history which has ever recognized that right. If you want to have a private marriage ritual you can do whatever you want, but marriage was never about marrying the person you love without any restrictions. As pointed out before, those restrictions are typically based on age, number of partners, degree of blood relationship and sex. The universal declaration of human rights in 1948 declared marriage as a human right, but the signing countries never used that right to abolish all existing restrictions. It said: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Restrictions related to age, sex, number of partners or degree of blood relationship were still valid. To understand more about what marriage is, how people started redefining it and why this matters for society, I suggest you look for the article "Redefining Marriage, Part 1-10: Who’s to Blame? The Root of the Problem".

@girl_in_tokyo: Because if you can't be attracted to men no matter how hard you try, then I think that provides pretty good evidence that sexuality is not fluid for everyone.

Your view that people cannot have a shift in sexuality is in direct conflict with others in the LGBTetc community. There appears to be an internal inconsistency on this that puts homosexuality and transgenderism in direct conflict with one another.

Discrimination means "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability." In this sense, discrimination is never justified - it is prejudicial, illogical, unreasonable, and bigoted.

This utopian idea that their can be no discrimination for any reason is impossible to achieve. Plenty of people who love each other cannot marry. Bisexuals cannot have a polygamous marriage, a 15 year old girl cannot marry the 40 year old man that she loves. Their are many similar situations in which people who are in love are discriminated against.

Given Japan's dire demographic situation, I think this would be a negative for the country.

Akula - are you saying that if gay people are prevented from marriage, they will turn hetero and starting pumping out babies?

People most certainly are born gay. It's laughable to say that people can suddenly "become" gay.

I know someone who did. Had a family, then one day, divorced, said good-bye to kids and ex, moved in with gay partner.

You can relax. No matter how much gay porn you watch, you won't turn gay if you already aren't gay. So enjoy!

You are seriously suggesting that a straight person enjoy gay porn?

Do we really need this kind of inane sarcastic remark? I don't think it adds anything to the discussion.

It's hardly sarcastic. We just want to be done with the changes in the rules. But that's just it - the rules never change. The LGBT people want to stay in a place of power and they feel that by making rules, it gives them power.

It's annoying af is what it is.

girl_in_tokyoMar. 18 07:12 am JST

You can relax. No matter how much gay porn you watch, you won't turn gay if you already aren't gay. So enjoy!

What a disgusting comment., but not unexpected.

By the way, if gays feel that their lifestyle is natural, why does nature itself disagree? After all, if being gay is so natural, then why don't gays procreate? Two men, for example, doing it to each other does not result in apregnancy. It is already 2021, when will some people realize this?

People most certainly are born gay. It's laughable to say that people can suddenly "become" gay.

I know someone who did. Had a family, then one day, divorced, said good-bye to kids and ex, moved in with gay partner.

He had no homosexual feelings before then? They just overwhelmed him him one morning, eh? Could happen to you or I by the sounds of this. Best not jump the gun by opposing equal rights here.

By the way, if gays feel that their lifestyle is natural, why does nature itself disagree? 

Nature doesn’t ‘disagree’. Homosexuality is found among many species.

I think it is certainly possible to become gay. Thankfully not a blood relative but my mother's cousin by adoption came out about a decade or go. She had boyfriends in her younger years, but being overweight, not worried about her looks, poorly dressed and with a highly abrasive personality, her only viable romantic option was to find another similar female. I suspect that scenario plays out a lot.

Nature doesn’t ‘disagree’. Homosexuality is found among many species.

There are all sorts of abnormalities in nature.

Nature doesn’t ‘disagree’. Homosexuality is found among many species.

There are all sorts of abnormalities in nature.

Do explain to us.

Great news and happy to hear of fellow posters looking forward to getting married.

Sorry to see mean-spirited types voting you down.

By the way, if gays feel that their lifestyle is natural, why does nature itself disagree? After all, if being gay is so natural, then why don't gays procreate? Two men, for example, doing it to each other does not result in apregnancy. It is already 2021, when will some people realize this?

Gay people can adopt in many countries. Or use a surrogate or IVF.

There are plenty of hetero couples who choose not to have kids.

Being gay/bi etc is perfectly natural and humankind will survive even if a few of us aren't reproducing.

The LGBT people want to stay in a place of power and they feel that by making rules, it gives them power.

Some people seem to be very clued up as to what us LGBT people want. Did Leo Varadakar's tenure as Irish PM make any of you tremble with fear?

I think it is certainly possible to become gay.

I think it is certainly possible to become straight, but it's a complicated thing the spectrum of sexuality. And people are what they are. You can be a little bit of this or that. Sexuality isn't an absolute.

Thankfully not a blood relative

Why thankfully?

but being overweight, not worried about her looks, poorly dressed and with a highly abrasive personality, her only viable romantic option was to find another similar female. I suspect that scenario plays out a lot.

You suspect incorrectly. Try harder.

If minorities don't mind being bunched together just come up with a word instead of a ridiculous code that keeps changing as soon as someone decides they identify with a sparrow hawk or something.

Curious to know why you'd reduce us to the status of animals.

Personally, I'd never had much time for labels. But after years, decades of being called out for being who we are, being called out for not coming out, for coming out, for being un-natural, hellbound, shoving our LGBT agenda in people's faces, not shoving said agenda in people's faces, being mentally ill, on heat like rutting dogs, dirty, sick, paranoid, suicidal, not worthy, not fit to marry, flamboyant, ugly, low self esteem, blatant show offs and so on...

Well, after all those names, epithets, descriptions etc, I think it's fair play to identify as whatever the hell we like (in regards to the spectrum).

The thing about LGBTQ+ is that to a certain extent everybody can identify as such. It depends on which interpretation you give to certain feelings or character traits. How many times do you have to experience attraction to someone of the same sex to be at least a bit bisexual? How many traits do you need to have which are more related to the opposite sex to be at least partially trans? I could myself identify as slightly bisexual and trans exactly because of such ambiguity. Some also claim that everybody is bisexual or that there's an infinite number of genders. And to experience something that relates to LGBTQ doesn't mean you have to agree with everything a certain vocal majority from the LGBTQ community says. There are for example also people who openly identify as gay but still disagree with for example same sex marriage or even that homosexuality is a good thing.

16 people protest

wow

Almost there! We can do it!

Kniknaknokkaer Mar. 19  01:03 pm JST

Just to be clear, I have nothing against any of the LGHDADXTADHG crowd

If you had nothing against us then you would do us the respect of using the correct acronym instead of making fun of it. And partying with some gay dudes doesn't get you off the hook for homophobia. Even Rick "frothy mix" Santorum said he had gay friends. I'd be curious as to what your gay friends might say about you.

Thomas TankMar. 19  10:07 am JST

There are all sorts of abnormalities in nature.

That's why biologists don't refer to these things as "abnormalities" - only people who have prejudices use such labels. In a pure scientific sense, nothing is abnormal.

In other words, you don't get to pretend science backs you up when clearly this is not a scientific view at all.

Akula Mar. 19  09:46 am JST

I think it is certainly possible to become gay. Thankfully not a blood relative but my mother's cousin by adoption came out about a decade or go. She had boyfriends in her younger years, but being overweight, not worried about her looks, poorly dressed and with a highly abrasive personality, her only viable romantic option was to find another similar female. I suspect that scenario plays out a lot.

There is SO MUCH to unpack here.

No one can "become gay". One can have sex with the same gender to fulfill a sexual urge, but that is a far cry from being homoromantic.

The way you describe this woman, why would any lesbian want her??? Do you think we just get the dregs men reject? Have you ever even met a lesbian? Have you seen the L Word? Dude, it's not an exaggeration to say that there are a LOT of hot lesbians. And frankly, overweight heterosexuals with poor dress sense find partners all the time - have you ever been to Walmart? Looks and fashion sense have zero to do with sexual orientation.

I find it more likely that this girl lacked self-confidence and hated herself, so made herself purposefully unattractive because she didn't want men to hit on her. Lots of young gays and lesbians find it difficult to accept their sexuality, and it takes time for them to find themselves and have the confidence to date.

Nearly all gay men and women dated the opposite sex when younger. That does not mean they were straight; it means they were not out yet and were trying to deny their sexuality and fit in with peers.