national

Japan's top bar association urges authorization of same-sex marriage

84 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

84 Comments

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

Good.

Should be fun reading posts disagreeing with these experts on constitutional law.

5 ( +16 / -11 )

Good for them!

5 ( +14 / -9 )

Time to get our the popcorn. The bigots are NOT going to like this. And they’re going to be angry.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

Definitely, No ?

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Excellent news. Why would anyone have a problem with this move forward?

4 ( +15 / -11 )

No, first review civil partnerships, one step at a time, or there is a endangermnt to succumb, or be construed to activist pressure, insistence to comply to a form of Queer law.

An enforcement of values that discriminate from what society to believe to the norm

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

how about respecting everyone's point of view before slandering them or mocking their beliefs? it's still a free country, right? we can agree to disagree without using pejoratives because i see "bigots" on both sides of this issue.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

No, first review civil partnerships, one step at a time, or there is a endangermnt to succumb, or be construed to activist pressure, insistence to comply to a form of Queer law.

An enforcement of values that discriminate from what society to believe to the norm

The majority of the Japanese population supports marriage equality, so hardly. Maybe it's just because you personally don't like it? I mean, your fearmongering about a "form of queer law" gives that away. By the way, what exactly would you think that a "queer law" entails?

7 ( +15 / -8 )

Very good news.

But with this government, I won't hold my breath.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

What are the advantages and disadvantages for becoming married versus just living together?

Enabling the immigration of foreigner partners via "marriage" might be one. Passing on of inheritance might be another.

What are the tax implications? Any other benefits?

Why do people feel the need to have the State or religion to recognize their relationship?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

I hope that gays couples in Japan are soon allowed to get their garriages legally recognized.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

@pacificwest

Why do people feel the need to have the State or religion to recognize their relationship?

Can you answer that question on behalf of heterosexuals?

I imagine the answers will be the same, don't you?

But I'll give you one reason: in cases of illness and death, the partner, as the law stands now, has no rights re. medical care, funeral arrangements, or inheritance. in Japan, couples have got over this hurdle by adoption, ie one adult adopts the other adult.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

There's nothing wrong with gay marriage and it should be allowed.

Rather than simply allowing it though, I hope the whole koseki system is reviewed and basically abolished in its current form. Spousal dependency under shakai hoken should also end, and replaced with more support for parents, married, single, in civil partnership, or otherwise.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Kangaesugim I agree, the political reality could be a form of silent tolerance.

My association/reference to queer law is clearly an unacceptable volition, or societies acceptance/limitations of bigotry behaviour outside of civil partnerships.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Apologises Kangaesugi, for the misspelling of your moniker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is there a valid argument against same sex marriage?

9 ( +12 / -3 )

KakukakushikajikaToday  09:22 am JST

Is there a valid argument against same sex marriage?

Haven't they suffered enough?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A group of top lawyers in Japan called on the government and parliament on Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage by revising relevant laws.

That's good.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Why do people feel the need to have the State or religion to recognize their relationship?

Some people like to get married.

And some states discriminate against couples who aren't married.

When I was younger, I didn't subscribe to the concept of marriage. Wasn't for me. But then, life happened and I mellowed.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Japan's top bar association is controlled by Koreans.

Lol.

Please don't.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@Maria

Can you answer that question on behalf of heterosexuals?

My question applied equally to both, hence the request for legal clarification, although in Japan it is a far more causal commitment in that sense than in the West.

In many cases, marriage is actually a disadvantage. Then there are the complications and expense of divorce, in comparison to just walking out. At the end of the marriage isn't about love, it's a business contract.

Someone else mentioned "civil partnerships" and I know nothing about that or how it applies.

Ditto, are gay marriages recognized overseas and how would it effect international earnings?

I considered 'power of attorney', which is what you are writing about, but then I realized that could be achieved with a simple legal agreement in virtually every case except unprepared for emergencies.

On the negative side, I think it will lead to a small, albeit very small, increase in immigration and tax fraud, however, that's more a critique of male tendencies, exaggerated by having two or more males in one relationship, not homosexuality per se.

I imagine, just as with certain nations of ambitious Asian females, they'll now be nations of Asian males aiming at at catching a Japanese husband, and in the short term there'll be some social fall out as naive Japanese homosexuals are put through the mill too; and that there'll also be an element of them become trophy husbands to Westerners ... "Mister Butterflies", in other words.

No wonder the lawyers are pushing for it, it will increase their income on the way in and on the way out!

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

@pacificwest

Why do people feel the need to have the State or religion to recognize their relationship?

Yeah. What kind of people would ever seek the approval of others, especially those in a position of authority? I mean it's not like we've been conditioned to do so since we were babies or anything, right? Right?

Lol

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Same sex marriage? Above Civil Partnerships, defined within in a legal framework?

Morally, culturally or politically?

A means to create a legislative counsel to exploit a liberal need, politically, to foreseeably define the constitution charter of rights and freedoms to suggest, wait, continuously asphyxiate the religious interpretation of marriage. No......

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

If one has strong religious leanings that prevent them from supporting same sex marriage, that's fine. Good for you.

But it doesn't entail that one's religious beliefs should prevent anyone else from having a same sex wedding.

You don't have to attend. We'll get over it.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

The difference between top bar association and top bar stupidity is only one word.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

Good. About time.

A friend of mine in Vermont married a transgendered woman. But Vermont is a very liberal state. Never met her but looking at Facebook pictures I couldn’t really tell. But she legally changed her sex to female so my friend, on paper, is married to a woman.

In japan to legally change your sex, individuals are required to undergo sex reassignment surgery which also infringes on human rights. Some people with gender dysphoria want the surgery and others don’t.

So japan should also allow people to legally change their sex to what they identify as without the need for serious surgery.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I guessed this discussion would lead to next hurdle of normalizing that transgender/gender dysphoria mental illness.

If I "identify" as the Emperor of China, can I have everyone address me as Their Excellency, pay tribute, and a suitable supply of concubines.

Please, god, don't let Japan go down that route.

@sourpuss

Yeah. What kind of people would ever seek the approval of others, especially those in a position of authority?

Didn't you get over it?

@Rot10

I constantly see people moan about the west forcing their liberal views on Japan. But this call for equality comes from inside Japan's society,

And where did those people inside Japan get their ideas from? Let's be honest, it's a case of elements within the Left in Japan, slavishly following the West years behind yet again ... without waiting to see what the result of the changes had on the West.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Why do people feel the need to have the State or religion to recognize their relationship?

Japan is a country with a secular constitution. In my view, the state should not deny rights to people based on their sexuality. The religious should be within their rights to object to it and not recognize it in their faiths.

My own take is that religious institutions will eventually recognize it for fear of losing their congregations and, most importantly, money.

Temporal concerns will eventually overwhelm spiritual concerns. We are talking money here.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

If I "identify" as the Emperor of China, can I have everyone address me as Their Excellency, pay tribute, and a suitable supply of concubines.

Amazing how two people in love, wanting to get married can install such surreal fear into the discussion.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Why do people feel the need to have the State or religion to recognize their relationship?

Who cares about religion.

As for why I feel the need for the state to recognize my relationship, it's to receive the rights and benefits one receives for being in a relationship. I actually couldn't care less whether the state agrees with my relationship, I just want the rights and benefits that married people receive.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

All individuals are granted the freedom to decide whether they marry as well as who and when they wed under the Constitution of Japan,

As it should be. Good on the bar association.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Firstly, good on the Bar Assoc for supporting this.

Secondly, the cynical side of me is saying that they are keen to exploit the new market that this would bring . . . . . .

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If I "identify" as the Emperor of China, can I have everyone address me as Their Excellency, pay tribute, and a suitable supply of concubines.

No, you can't. A spurious argument, and one that frequently gets used to deny transgender individuals any form of rights or acceptance. It would be more honest to simply state that you believe gender dysphoria is essentially as real as selecting a fictional personage and pretending to be them.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Good to see agents of change are speaking truth to power, particularly in Japan, a place famously known to be steeped in tradition and highly resistant to change.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You will never see minorities in any other country besides the US ascend to the highest office in the land

Yes you will, and we saw it in other nations well before the US ever did it.

And what happened when Obama came into office was that it exposed just how racist a mess the US is. Look at how your team freaked out over President Blackenstein.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

pacificwest has convinced me: ban heterosexual marriage.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes you will, and we saw it in other nations well before the US ever did it

A black PM in Europe? Lol Never happen, gay politicians all the time. Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay politician in SF. Of course we were the forefront and pioneer in the largest gay city in the US.

It’s good to see Japan go in that direction, every country should go at their own pace and not be pushed into making a decision that could cause complications with certain groups of the community.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

A black PM in Europe?

No, a "minority". Why you shift the goalposts bro? Doing so may make one come to think you're a deplorable "American".

9 ( +9 / -0 )

@bas4fOther countries are trying to catch a up to us.

If by 'catch up' you mean progress, that will be easy to do as Trump and the white nationalists in his base continue their efforts to send the US back to the 1950s.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If by 'catch up' you mean progress, that will be easy to do as Trump and the white nationalists in his base continue their efforts to send the US back to the 1950s.

Send back? You mean when Democrats discriminated against anyone that wasn’t White? Hardly. I really don’t know what Trump and Nationalists has to do with this, but if it makes you happy, good.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Of course we were the forefront and pioneer in the largest gay city in the US.

It looks as though you are now claiming to have lived in SF. It's uncanny how you have a personal anecdote to support every argument you make.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It takes time, how many female PMs has Japan had? Could you imagin the outcry? Just mentioning a Female Empress caused such panic by those suits in power. A person who loves the same gender God forbid.

The population accepts individuals sexuality, polls have shown. But not the power brokers.

I suspect it's those with fear of change or a personal religious vent that oppose fellow human beings actually living normal or happy lives.

Hitler felt the same.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If Abe pushes for gay rights, it might just give him the popularity boost from the left leaning public to change article 9.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A black PM in Europe? Lol Never happen, gay politicians all the time.

I thought you initially said "minorities"?

Leo Varadakar is both openly gay and mixed race.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

One of the most obvious reasons for caution and moderation is that every action causes a reaction and looking at what is going on in the USA at present, excessive liberalism has caused a reactionary swing in the opposite direction to excessive conservativism.

You need to weigh up the balance between the interests of a tiny minority against the interests of the whole and move more gradually.

I tend to consider the current Left Wing in Japan to be a little naive, adopting or piggybacking on ideas it has seen or heard of in the West without questioning them.

If you are going to upset the apple cart, then it should at least be for something really worth doing so, and I don't think the issues we are discussing here are the most important priorities.

For example, let's fix the position of Japanese women on the whole first rather than pursuing the rights of a man who has cut his penis off to be abused as one, and let's not go down the same route as America with legal battles over who uses which toilet facilities.

It'll be the rights of transgender males to bathe on the women's side of the onsen next.

I'm still not clear about the difference between "marriage" and a "social contract" and why marriage is better or required. What the pros and cons are. It seems to me to be some Judeo-Christian hangover that is not quite apt in Japan where the marriage is, essentially, nothing more than an administrative change of address.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

If you want to get into specifics, look at how the changes to tax would work, and how it effected women in marriages.

And how does that work, would one partner have to elect to be the "woman" and the other the "man"?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Great. What's next? Joint custody after divorce?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Homosexuality, and specifically sodomy, is of course, fobidden by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I never understood why a Sodomist would want to be blessed by or part of a religion that considered the best thing to do with them is take them outside the city walls and stone them to death.

I never understood why people focus so much on anal penetration. I mean, hetero couples indulge in it, too. Married couples as well.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

And how does that work, would one partner have to elect to be the "woman" and the other the "man"?

I couldn't possibly speak for all LGBT couples but what I have observed is -

In a relationship where both are male, one is a man and the other is a man,

and in a relationship where both are women, one is a woman and the other is a woman.

Of course, different relationships have different dynamics when it comes to transgender couples, or couples where one is trans and the other is not. You could call them gay/hetero/bisexual or just fluid.

It doesn't really matter, love and sexuality is a many faceted, wonderful thing.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." 

- Lev. 20:13

"Mankind" is the collective term for every single human being on the planet, though contrasted here with "womankind" I suppose it means every single man alive.

I don't think that someone who sleeps with every single man alive should be put to death. If anything I'm impressed. And also fine with that (presumably very athletic) man getting married, especially given the Bible is fine with polygamy.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I remember in my school days, this person regularly subjecting me to homophobic abuse (although we didn't know it by that term, in those days).

Ended up dating each other a couple of times, years later.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Toasted Heretic

I couldn't possibly speak for all LGBT couples but what I have observed is 

Romantic, but what we are talking about here is who gets which tax rating.

Do you both want the most advantageous one? Or do you both want the least advantageous one? Or do you want turns?

Just one of the small practical issues to address.

Someone's got to be the sub, and someone the dom, or else you stay single.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I hope they'll recognize it soon, but unfortunately it doesn't take away the stigma that Japanese people have towards LGBTQ people and the shame of "not being like everyone else" that's still so imortant to Japanese people.

Most of them are not bad, they're just ignorant, meaning they don't even know what LGBTQ is...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Someone's got to be the sub, and someone the dom, or else you stay single.

This is only true of a certain subculture - and even there, you have switches.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This thread has denigrated, it's not about who does what to who or how, that's between a couple. It's about the legal right as a human to have your Union recognised by the state. In a Legal context. Not a church or a Temple, Mosque but the state.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

"Mankind" is the collective term for every single human being on the planet, though contrasted here with "womankind" I suppose it means every single man alive.

That would be an odd interpretation of the text. I think it’s pretty obvious what this text is getting at.

The ancient Hebrews were pretty hung up on sex, but we are not talking about the Bible, but rather a secular country without a judeo-Christian past.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

transgender individuals 

I'm a believer in science. Biological fact: There are two genders - male and female.

That being said, and as a heterosexual, I'm not against same sex marriage. If two people of the same sex are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, more power to them.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Marriages have nothing to do with love.

They are contracts between two parties to agree to exist as a family for the purpose of raising children together.

Marriage serves society in that it provides a mechanism for stable homes for children to be raised in.

Marriage doesn't serve the individuals who partake in it, that's why grandparents often have to pressure young people to get married when they are often reluctant to do so.

Gays, who can't bear children, don't need marriage, they can cohabit like any other couple.

Gays asking for a marriage license is like a cat owner asking for a dog license.... Sorry you don't need that form, you need another one.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Marriages have nothing to do with love.

Mine does.

They are contracts between two parties to agree to exist as a family for the purpose of raising children together

I don’t have any children.

I’m a man married to a woman.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Society does confer benefits onto married couples, and the reason is that it's an implicit agreement that the couples will "consummate" the marriage and thus create new life and new taxpayers to perpetuate society.

It's a trade off, we give you benefits and you promise create children and put up with each for the rest of your lives so those children you create can grow up in stable homes and thus become dependable workers.

People who have zero chance of creating life by consummating a marriage don't need the institution of marriage.

Gays don't need a "till death do you part" state sanctioned contract, only mothers and fathers need that, to force them to stay together and raise those kids as a family.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Someone's got to be the sub, and someone the dom, or else you stay single.

Why? Heterosexual marriages don't have this supposed requirement. Why put it on the gays bro?

Marriages have nothing to do with love.

Well that's just silly. You can't judge all marriages by your own and your parents. It's a big world out there mate, take a look around.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

These top lawyers shared their factual reading of the actual constitution.

And this is their job.

There is nothing to argue about that except if you are an experimented lawyer that can demonstrate the contrary.

Any moralistic or whatever similar comments are completely irrelevant with regard to this statement. This is another debate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations?

How many members are there?

Did all the members vote on that proffered statement?

What was the tally of the vote?

Why did any members vote no, if any?

And why does this site only post puff pieces on this issue?

At least Mr. Tanaka was honest about what he wants to happen. Have the Japanese government arbitrarily overturn marriage for a different institution in an act of social engineering and label this new artificial construct with the same name, which means any Japanese citizen who disagrees will be strong-armed by the government if he or she conscientiously objects.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Eleonora

I hope they'll recognize it soon, but unfortunately it doesn't take away the stigma that Japanese people have towards LGBTQ people

Does it really? Where's your evidence? We've have/had a tradition of gay samurais (Shudô), the floating world (Edo), aristocratic lesbian literature, specialist brothels and cruising grounds, gay fascist leaders (oops - Mishima), gay major religious founders (Kukai, possibly Saicho), gay bathouses, a great selection of Shunga woodblock prints, the nickname for hemorrhoids is "monk's disease" (and I'll leave you to guess why), and you can even take it from Saint Francis Xavier note, in the C16th, 

There are monks who love the sin abhorred by nature; they admit it themselves; they never deny it ... The public ... does not at all consider it outrageous, for it has been the custom for a long time already.”

Go to a red light district and your find the full spectrum of desire, or perversion, on offer.

Of course, the pederastic or pedophiliac homosexual element within that culture is problematic but do you really think every one is "ignorant" about all this?

@Burning Bush

Society does confer benefits onto married couples ... It's a trade off, we give you benefits and you promise create children

I think you've nailed it, Burning.

And factor into 'looking after your parents' when they are old.

@Strangerland

sub ... dom ... Why? Heterosexual marriages don't have this supposed requirement. Why put it on the gays bro?

In this instance, I'm talking purely for the sake of the tax man and the way married couples are taxed. Reform in marriage laws would have to involve greater reforms in tax laws and it's a crapshoot as to whether any changes to tax laws would be better for all or any. My bet would be "worse for all". 

At present, tax defines main earner (husband), and subsidiary earner (wife). Where you have two husbands, as in two main earners, how does the arrangement work?

What Burning Bush wrote is correct. The way things are conceived of at present is an implicit contract and one main earner in the economy, in order to support a second mainly non-worker doing the import work of "farming" children for the next generation.

Look into the problems and effects of the way in which married women/mothers are taxed and how it's affected their work patterns.

'Marriage' is not about the love. The love and loyalty etc can exist perfectly without one. Marriage is a business contract, it's about property, it is also co-relationship with the rest of society, which society has an interest in too (as it is going likely to pick up the tab if it goes wrong).

It is an institution serving a greater purpose than just the desires of two individuals.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

And the rejection of it is not "fear" but a natural part of the biological imperative of our species.

Accepted its this generation's fad but there are amazing statistic coming out of the US, where the primary activists are driving this movement, about the number of children considering themselves to be "non-binary", and it is pushing to be allowed to evangelize in schools.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

One thing about Japan is that it does not have the self-righteous bigots who use the bible to

hide their sexism and basic ignorance. That was the battle in the USA and that battle is over.

No one cares now but for a long time the sanctity of marriage was touted by bible thumpers who

divorce at a higher rate than gay couples, by far.

Society benefits if couples get equal rights that commit to each other via marriage. And as

this report points out anything less is illegal in Japan. This will take some time but eventually

Japan will join the rest of the developed world and allow same-sex marriages. 51% of Japanese support this change according to the NHK. 28 countries have approved it so far. It is a no brainer.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Good let them do as they please...Its their lives doesn't interfere with anyone else so really who cares....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This argument is done for anyone that cares about reality and facts.

Homosexuality is in nature.

Marriage doesn't belong to any one tradition or religion.

Marriage doesn't require offspring.

There have always been gay people.

Children of gay couples are no more likely to be gay than the general population.

No-one is forcing anyone to be gay or to be with anyone they don't want to be.

Why would we want to support maximal equality for the most people?

Young people struggling with their sexuality and not supported are amongst highest rates of depression and attempted suicide of any group.

Allow two people in love as partners to live their lives as they please, its nothing to do with you...

I hope Japan moves towards changing this restriction soon.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@Strangerland

My mother and her husband have not had any children. They've been married for 25 years, and received the rights and benefits that go along with that.

Then they'd played the system to their benefit.

But, your response is somewhere disingenuous because surely your mother fulfilled her role/purpose and had you (and other siblings) in a previous marriage?

Was she a traditional "kept woman"? As in non- or second earner? Were you already adult when they remarried, or did the husband adopt and support you too?

@NZ2011

Homosexuality is in nature.

I think the current state of thinking is that humans are the only documented case of "true" homosexuality and that whas has been described is that many species are happy to engage in sex with partners of either sex. Of course, that's also true of some humans.

The reason for that being human's ability to conceive and communicate concepts or ideas, eg to self-define and spread mimetic ideas, as is currently happening with the whole non-binary/transgender fad. Much of that proselyting of mimetic ideas is self-serving, eg whether it is religious, tribal or pederastic, which then leads to conflicts with other groups carrying other memes. Homosexuality is in nature but so is murder, rape, domestic violence etc etc etc.

Being "natural" is not synonymous with good or beneficial.

The question then quickly us to what is the purpose of life? What is the overriding principle we are working with? Biologically it is largely an aberrant disadvantage for the species, if we accept that imperative (I write largely because in some species it works to ensure the raising of advantaged young. Who knows, may be the power of pink dollar - two primary income eaners - will prove that to be true in humans too?).

But, as Ben Franklin said, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes, and so the later is the issue I would be concerned about and no one has responded to.

Equality would mean equality in taxes and responsibilities too (and Japan has a far more important residual problem with regards female equality, women in the workplace and taxes to fix first, that will have to fixed alongside this, unless it is to become yet another inequality benefit men again).

There is another element to this I am uncomfortable with and it is the idiot Left attempting to bundle together disparate minority causes for no other reason that what is an generally unsuccessful attempt to get elected. By doing so, they don't just risk provoking reactionary resistance from the Right but also disenfranchising more moderate or ground or traditionally working class supporters - action, reaction, consequences - and that is it these types of minor issues - immigration or "diversity" is another - that has driven many to the so called "Far Right" in Europe and America.

How it will play out in Japan, I have no idea but I suggest proponents think beyond "me and mine" to the bigger picture.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

This argument is done for anyone that cares about reality and facts.

Humans are made male and female.

Human bodies are oriented toward reproductive sex. Anything else related to sex is simply personal preference.

As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriage relationships produce the next generation.

Same-sex marriage does not produce children.

Children in a same-sex home are denied a mother or a father’s love.

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

Same-sex couples/throuples are already free to make lifelong committed relationships.

When the state arbitrarily creates artificial rights, citizens’ rights are infringed upon, such as freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

I hope Japan moves towards public policies that create a healthier marriage culture rather than promote motherless or fatherless homes.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Mr. Anderson,

Very well spoken.

I too believe that marriage is a societal construct that serves to solidify families and children.

It's my personal opinion that every child should be born into wedlock to his/her natural parents. And that marriage is society's way of ensuring that children get that opportunity.

For me, marriage has nothing to do with romance, it's all about families and children.

Mr personal opinion is that couples who by definition, have zero chance of bearing children, should not be granted the benefits that are meant for couples who are capable of producing children.

Let me openly say I have no personal problem with gay couples cohabiting. What they do in their own bedrooms is absolutely their business.

But they shouldn't be requesting the tax advantages and benefits that society has laid out for couples that are capable of producing children by consummating a marriage.

I really hope nobody is offended by me simply expressing my personal opinion.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Same-sex marriage does not produce children.

And neither do many heterosexual marriages, which pulls the rug out from the rest of your post.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Burning Bush, thank you. And even more, thank you for speaking up and out for marriage, intact families, children and society.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

how about respecting everyone's point of view before slandering them or mocking their beliefs?

Those days are long gone, and that's no belief.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let me openly say I have no personal problem with gay couples cohabiting. What they do in their own bedrooms is absolutely their business.

Gosh, how accommodating of you. But as long as it's hidden and out of sight, right?

But they shouldn't be requesting the tax advantages and benefits that society has laid out for couples that are capable of producing children by consummating a marriage.

So, no equality, then. Plenty of hetero married couples don't produce children. But for some reason, it's the gays who are the problem.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

zucronium:

One thing about Japan is that it does not have the self-righteous bigots who use the bible to hide their sexism and basic ignorance. That was the battle in the USA and that battle is over.

Ah, the stereotypes. Just fwiw, I am atheist and very much against same-sex marriage, for the reasons explained by Rolf Andersen.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Toasted Heretic:

"Let me openly say I have no personal problem with gay couples cohabiting. What they do in their own bedrooms is absolutely their business."

Gosh, how accommodating of you. But as long as it's hidden and out of sight, right?

I want to see bedroom activities hidden and out of sight, regarldess of hetero, homo, or any other sexual variation. What is your point?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I think the biggest problem is not the union itself but the use of the marriage contract from religion that forbids same sex marriages.

A good solution would be to really separate all religion from state.

Marriage in the eyes of the state should be redefined to civil partnerships separating marriages as a personal preferences.

This would offset any legality and perceived ethical/moral dilemmas that arise.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I want to see bedroom activities hidden and out of sight, regarldess of hetero, homo, or any other sexual variation. What is your point?

What's yours? How many bedroom activities are on display in public for all to see?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic:

I was simply responding to your message. So hard to scroll back and read the context?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"All individuals are granted the freedom to decide whether they marry as well as who and when they wed". This is a misleading statement when it claims to refer to legal recognition of marriage. People can have a private marriage ceremony in any way they want (siblings, multiple partners, same sex, with an animal or a tree …) but that doesn't mean that the law has to recognize such 'relationships' as marriages. There's no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality because our existence as male - female defines us as a heterosexual species. To think that recognizing heterosexual relationships as legal marriages could automatically create a right to legally marry someone of the same sex, completely obscures the reason why heterosexuality deserves such formal recognition.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There's no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality because our existence as male - female defines us as a heterosexual species. To think that recognizing heterosexual relationships as legal marriages could automatically create a right to legally marry someone of the same sex, completely obscures the reason why heterosexuality deserves such formal recognition.

The idea that we should deny legal rights because they dared to do the sin of falling in love with someone with whom they, gasp, get this, share a common genitalia, deserves no rights whatsoever. That is the largest sin ever! They have the SAME genitalia! How can anyone ever think people should ever be respected when they dare to love people whom have the same genitalia! I mean, that's inherently wrong, right? THEY SHARE THE SAME GENITALIA! They should be denied the right to live in civilization for such an egregious offense. It's the SAME genitalia. Morally decrepit. How dare they fall in love with someone other people have decided they're not allowed to fall in love with when they share the same genitalia. Do these people not understand that you must force yourself to love someone with whom you don't share a common genitalia, because daring to love someone whom you love when they have the same genitalia as you is the largest moral failing known to humankind?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Nz2011:

Children of gay couples are no more likely to be gay than the general population.

Errr... can you explain this concept of "children of gay couples"? How is that supposed to work?

Unless by couple you mean "a gay man + a gay woman", in which case I would have no problem with that marriage at all. It would fall under "1 man plus 1 woman", which is the basic and sensible definition of marriage.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

DirkToday 05:29 am JST

"All individuals are granted the freedom to decide whether they marry as well as who and when they wed". This is a misleading statement when it claims to refer to legal recognition of marriage. People can have a private marriage ceremony in any way they want (siblings, multiple partners, same sex, with an animal or a tree …) but that doesn't mean that the law has to recognize such 'relationships' as marriages. There's no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality because our existence as male - female defines us as a heterosexual species. To think that recognizing heterosexual relationships as legal marriages could automatically create a right to legally marry someone of the same sex, completely obscures the reason why heterosexuality deserves such formal recognition.

You are comparing a marriage between two consenting adults with someone marrying an inanimate object (a tree) or an animal? How is that in any way a logical argument? You know that people marrying trees and animals isn't really a thing that even happens, don't you. You just like denigrating people by comparing them to non-humans, as a way of implying they aren't human and don't deserve to be treated as one. I think that says a lot about who you are, and the lack of morality empathy that lies at the center of your world construct.

The real comparison here would be that the law allows consenting adults to marry, and that relationship can take any shape or form that those two consenting adults chose. They can be monogamous or not; have children, adopt children, or have none; they can marry in a church, at home, in a park, or in any number of venues; their marriage ceremony can be religious or not; and the couple themselves may be of one of thousands of different religions, or they may be atheists. Yet they all will be treated the same under the law, because as human beings we all have the same rights - should have the same rights.

Heterosexuality doesn't deserve any special recognition or right. To say it does is inherently bigoted.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites