LGBT groups in Japan launch petition seeking equality law

Wolfpack Oct. 16 08:49 pm JST

Then you should oppose limiting marriage to just governmentally approved people.

I do oppose this. I don't think marraige should be regulated at all.

Marriage equality cannot be achieved if the government is regulating who can and cannot be married.

True again! You are on a roll!

Marriage is basically a religious concept- not a legal one.

No, actually, it is not. For one thing, religious institutions do not grant marriage rights or marriage licenses - the government does. You have already pointed that out, so you seem to know this.

For another thing, you do not have to be religious in order to get married, and you do not have to be of a particular religion to get married, and religious institutions cannot stop people they disapprove of from getting married.

So clearly, that statement is false.

The government can allow people to file for civil relationships for legal purposes in place of applying for a marriage license. That way no one would be excluded from visiting you in the hospital.

No. "separate but equal" is not acceptible for many reasons, particularly becuase it caters to prejudice and bigotry. You simply cannot have one law for some people and another law for other people when the reason for that is based on prejudice instead of reason and logic.

If you are advocating for gay marriage to the exclusion of other sexual preferences you are just as bigoted as you claim those opposing it are.

You said something like this earlier and then completely ignored my reply where I pointed out the flaws in that argument, and here you are, repeating it like a broken record.

It's interesting to me that a person can just conveniently ignore it when the flaws in their logic are pointed out, and maintain their position regardless.

Akula Today 06:01 am JST

I am married to my wife. We have children that are biologically both of ours. No same-sex couple can do what we have done, and so their relationship can never be equal to ours.

What exactly do you mean by "equal"? Do you feel your relationship is superior, somehow better, than relationships where children are not a part of the family?

That's quite short-sighted considering that there are many heterosexual couples who can't have children or who don't want to have children, as well as older people whose children are grown before they remarry, e.g., after the death of a spouse. Then of course there are couples who adopt children that are not biologically related to them, or who adopt the children of a sibling, or whose children are biologically related to one of them due to fertility issues.

Sorry, but the presence or absence of children and the ability to have biologically related children, is not the hallmark of a superior relationship.

I do think though there needs to be a mechanism where the property rights of non-conventional couples can be protected, and I suspect Japan falls down in this area. I don't believe marriage is the right vehicle for this however. Marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman.

There is no reason for marriage to only be between a man and a woman other than personal prejudice and active discrimination. Frankly, it is a bigoted point of view.

Wolfpack - I am simply pointing out that the logic used to justify your opinion is faulty. If your argument is that people cannot help who they love and that society should accommodate them you cannot ignore that other groups with other sexual preferences also fall into this category. You just want to limit the implications of your reasoning. That’s just not possible.

While people may not be able to help to whom they are attracted they can help acting on it. You may be sexually attracted to children but you should not act on it because legally children are not considered capable of giving consent. I get that you think you're cleverly being the devil's advocate but even so, I also think you understand the difference between two adults making a cognitive choice to enter into a marriage, a legal contract, versus a child's inability to make that decision and or understand all or any of the long term implications involved in it. If you can't see that or are going to continue pretending you can't see it simply for the sake of argument, you're wasting everyone's time. Your comparing same-sex marriage to child-marriage is not only logically weak but just plain silly. The slippery-slope argument only works if you assume that eliminating traditional standards means removing all standards and we know that is not the case as marriage, both legally and socially, even just between heterosexuals couples, has changed over the years.

There is no logical or legal argument to oppose same-sex marriage. The only basis for not supporting it is religious.

No same-sex couple can do what we have done, and so their relationship can never be equal to ours.

Why can't it be equal? You only gave a reason why it can't be the same. You didn't give any reason it can't be equal.

Marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman.

And you are allowed to have that opinion. Of course, it doesn't stand up to logic, but opinions don't have to. And neither do illogical opinions need to be included when creating the rules of society.

I am married to my wife. We have children that are biologically both of ours. No same-sex couple can do what we have done, and so their relationship can never be equal to ours.

I do think though there needs to be a mechanism where the property rights of non-conventional couples can be protected, and I suspect Japan falls down in this area. I don't believe marriage is the right vehicle for this however. Marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman.

Maybe it has something to do with inhertance tax. If married inhertance is transferred to a spouse without tax up to a limit. But if you are not legally married = taxation

Marriage is basically a religious concept- not a legal one

Parochial thinking yet again. Do you think marriage in Japan is a religious concept? How about in China? I’m from the UK and my registry office marriage had zero to do with religion by design. This is very common in the UK. You really do need to travel more and read about different cultures.

If you are advocating for gay marriage to the exclusion of other sexual preferences you are just as bigoted as you claim those opposing it are.

What other sexual preferences am I excluding? Please don’t tell me you are ignoring the idea of consent.

Jimizo: By the way, I don’t see myself as a homosexual activist. I see myself as someone who believes in treating citizens equally.

Then you should oppose limiting marriage to just governmentally approved people. Marriage equality cannot be achieved if the government is regulating who can and cannot be married. Marriage is basically a religious concept- not a legal one. The government can allow people to file for civil relationships for legal purposes in place of applying for a marriage license. That way no one would be excluded from visiting you in the hospital. If you are advocating for gay marriage to the exclusion of other sexual preferences you are just as bigoted as you claim those opposing it are.

Instead, those who want to oppress gay people, pretend that it's part of a wider concern. We'll be allowed marry our pets next.

Why can’t a person marry whomever they love? What gives you the right to oppress them?

So, we're all asexual up until the moment we have sex. 

We are discussing sexual preferences- who a person loves right?

Toasted: And is it your business to define what marriage is and say who can and can't get married?

Well no more than it is yours to define it. You do understand that people are expressing their opinions about a story on this website?

This has nothing to do with kiddy fiddlers, am not sure why those who would seek to deny two people in love the right to get married, always bring up this false equivalence.

I am simply pointing out that the logic used to justify your opinion is faulty. If your argument is that people cannot help who they love and that society should accommodate them you cannot ignore that other groups with other sexual preferences also fall into this category. You just want to limit the implications of your reasoning. That’s just not possible.

Another non-starter. Being LGBT isn't down to what your politics are. There are gay people from all ends of the political spectrum.

Yes there are conservative homosexuals but conservatives are not pushing faux marriage equality.

This "argument" is used to deflect from the necessity of LGBT rights. The right to equality and a loving marriage.

No this argument is used to expose the contradiction of espousing marriage equality while excluding people with minority sexual preferences.

What does it mean to be "gender confused"?

@gokai

It’s a bit weak and evasive to be blaming (?) homophobic western influence for Japan dragging its heels on this issue.

The west has moved forward on this issue. Japan hasn’t at the same rate.

Japan needs to look at itself here.

It's high time that Japan recognize the rights and privileges of the LGBTQ community and work to integrate them into society.

I find it strange that Japan not having a strong affiliation with Christianity is so abhorrent to the concept of homosexuality. Two of its most prominent religions, Shintoism and Buddhism condone it. In fact, Japan's medieval history is filled with Daimyos and Shoguns who openly practiced it.

Why then do they feel that their society must suppress it. Can they not come to the realization that homosexuality has always existed within all societies and therefore rather than segregate and incriminate those of us who are homosexual, we should be accepting and respectful of their differences.

Japan didn't really have a problem with gay relations before Western influence began to spread in Japan, and in particular, Western sexual morality, which is very repressive. Before that, in Japan, sex was just something fun to do and was not the object of moral judgment. "Pillow Books" (枕草紙) were wood-block print books showing how to have sex, and at the end, there would be chapters on gay sex. After the war, these sections were deleted in publications, but over the last decade, Pillow Books have been published that include these final chapters. That's progress.

WolfpackToday 12:14 pm JST

That answer was for those who think homosexuality is genetic and not a choice.

Homosexuality IS genetic.

Pedophilia has also survived for thousands of years so are we to believe that it is also genetic?

Pedophillia IS genetic.

The implications for the genetic explanation are very destructive to a healthy society.

Other things that also are genetic include sex, blue eyes, height, sickle cell anemia, albinism, cystic fibrosis, and baldness - so what is your point?

The Left can’t seem to make up their minds. On the one hand they believe that people are born homosexual while simultaneously believing that sexuality is a spectrum that people can traverse along over time (ie choosing their sexuality). They hold both of these concepts in their minds at the same time and somehow cannot detect any logical inconsistency.

No. This is not what people believe. Sexuality IS a spectrum, but "people can transverse" should be "people transverse" - meaning that sometimes people who have repressed their sexuality learn to accept themselves and then begin to act on the feelings they had that were there all along.

This is not to say that people change their sexuality. People only change how they feel about their innate sexuality and then change their sexual behavior. When someone has lived as a straight person their entire lives begins to explore their sexuality, they aren't actively making a choice to become gay. They are uncovering the truth about their sexuality that was psychologically hidden from them.

You know, the correct information on this subject is out there, at your fingertips. All you have to do is look it up. You don't need to remain ignorant and continue to make guesses and assumptions based on your personal prejudices. All you have to do is google.

I'd like to declare my unreserved solidarity and support to gokai_wo_maneku and others striving for justice, equality, and freedom.

Some say that gay marriage is unconstitutional because it says marriage must be agreed on between "both sexes" (両性), and "both sexes" is understood (or assumed) to be the male and the female. However, considering how the constitution is being reinterpreted to allow Japan to have a military (which it seems to prohibit), we can reinterpret 両性 to mean "both sexes involved", which could be male-female, male-male, or female-female. And we can have gay marriage. Full disclosure: totally gay gokai and his partner of 25 years (since junior high) would really like to get married.

I don’t see myself as a homosexual activist. I see myself as someone who believes in treating citizens equally.

Well said. After all, nobody would call the minority here (advocating for LGBT people to be excluded from a life of happiness and equality) heterosexual activists! We had the term "gender confusion activists" on a similar article.

Why are a few people insistent that LGBT folks must accept their lot in life and not aim for equality? How on earth does it affect them if Beth marries Margaret etc etc.? Nobody is forcing them to marry someone of their own sex...

WolfpackToday 12:41 pm JST

Homosexual activists just love to piggyback their cause with those of black people - it’s shameful. Race and sexual orientation are not in any way synonymous. Sexual intimacy is something you do. Race is an immutable trait.

Wrong.

You can't chose or change your sexual orientation any more than you can chose or change your skin color.

You don't actively decide to be gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual - you merely ARE gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual. To demonstrate this to yourself is easy: right now, make a conscious choice to be gay. Be sexually and romantically attracted to men. Try it right now - and you'll find that you cannot do it. You cannot, because it is not an active choice a person makes. It is an orientation, from birth.

Sexual relationships are a conscious choice -

Yes - while you cannot change and do not chose your sexual orientation, you can and do chose whether to be in a relationship or not.

because it is an activity. If you do not engage intimately with another person you are neither heterosexual or homosexual. You would be considered asexual.

That is not what asexuality is. Asexuality is not merely a person who refrains from having sexual relations. Asexuality is an orientation, defined by a lack of sexual attraction to other people.

This is seperate and distinct from people who actively chose celibacy. They often struggle to remain celibate because they remain sexually and romantically attracted to others; they simply do not act on it.

Now I have no problem acknowledging that a minority of people are attracted to people of the same sex. But their are also a lot of other different types of sexual attraction. Adults to children, between close relatives, bisexuals with both other men and women at the same time, etc etc.. Wouldn’t it therefore logically follow that marriage law should accommodate everyone else who also cannot help it who they love? Unfortunately that is the path modern societies have decided to walk down.

How would it be logical to allow an adult to marry a child?! This is not at all logical! How can you even make such a statement? This is promoting child abuse!

How would it be logical to allow close relatives to marry?! This is not at all logical, for reasons that go beyond what it means to love someone - it's about genetics.

But it is perfectly logical to allow consenting adults to marry the person, or even the people, they love. Many cultures though history have allowed plural marriage. You really cannot come up with a logical argument, that is not just based on prejudice, to deny adults marriage rights when they are all of age and can consent.

What a complete waste of resources that could be put to greater purposes for the betterment of Japanese society in its entirety! For every member!

Are we not members of Japanese society? Why should we be left out?

Not just a select few seeking to proselytize all to affirm an unfulfilling way to live.

If you find marriage unfullfilling, that's your perogative. But why would you deny the rest of the right to find out for ourselves?

Not really sure why straight people care so much about what gay people do. It comes back to the fact that people really need to start minding their own business and not stick their noses in others peoples lives. I don't see how a gay couple getting married will have any effect on my life or marriage. Everyone who finds someone that they are mutually compatible with, should have the same rights as any one else not matter the genitals.

I remember reading about the arguments against interracial marriage before that was recognized. 

Your view on how equality works could easily have been applied there.

Homosexual activists just love to piggyback their cause with those of black people - it’s shameful.

Parochial thinking. I wasn’t ‘piggybacking ‘ on the black experience in majority white countries. Many societies didn’t allow interracial marriage or marriage between people of different races or tribes. Many weren’t black.

A big world out there, you know.

By the way, I don’t see myself as a homosexual activist. I see myself as someone who believes in treating citizens equally.

If only there was something like "Power of attorney" in Japan that would ......

oh wait, there is.

If you have time google "japantimes power of attorney"

Otherwise, why LGBT is not promoting 3 and infinite number of partners in a group that love each other ?

Sounds like a good idea, let's do it.

ZvonkoJonathanToday 01:11 pm JST

Marriage in the name itself means moral and legal union of two different sexes, in the early writings we find the name of women as Mar, Mara and later Mary.

You sure of that, isn't it coming from Latin ?

Marriage in the name itself means moral and legal union of two different sexes, in the early writings we find the name of women as Mar, Mara and later Mary. So when a man got himself a Mary he become Married. In slavic languages it is even clearer; Ozeniti se = getting a woman and udati se = give itself (to a man). If one understands that before the sex became the strictly for pleasure and time filler idea of Marriage was about procreation and family not like an amusement park. So probably the best way would be to separate the Family laws concerning couples with child or children as Marriage and all other childless unions not be considered Marriage but common law partnerships. In other words any two or more adults sharing a common place of living should be same in front of the law, have same rights and obligations regardless of their sex or their reason for cohabitation. Their reason for cohabitation should not be enforced to other peoples or government's attention and they should not have any benefits higher than single residing individuals. Calling it a marriage should be reserved only for Families with at least one child.

it is all a matter about raising a family. It is not about love, it is about favouring children with a Dad and a Mom to be a recognized member and know where they come from if possible.

So, adoptive parents shouldn't get married, nor should single people who can't have children, nor people who can't conceive because of age?

Plenty of gay people have kids, by adoption, surrogates etc.

Personally, I don't want to imagine that I could be gay since I am married.

It's not all binary, you know. Plenty of people get married and their sexuality cannot be strictly defined as either straight or gay.

Please respect the original definition that was given to the word marriage. Call a cat a cat.

Marriages were originally decided by elders, kings, parents, political ties. Many were forced or arranged.

Sometimes tradition needs a bit of adjusting as time goes on.

Wouldn’t it therefore logically follow that marriage law should accommodate everyone else who also cannot help it who they love?

This "argument" is used to deflect from the necessity of LGBT rights. The right to equality and a loving marriage.

Instead, those who want to oppress gay people, pretend that it's part of a wider concern. We'll be allowed marry our pets next.

Don't believe me? Check out how many times that's been trotted out on this site and many others.

Sexual relationships are a conscious choice - because it is an activity. If you do not engage intimately with another person you are neither heterosexual or homosexual. You would be considered asexual.

So, we're all asexual up until the moment we have sex. Before and after, we are in a state of asexuality and have no sexual orientation at all. It's only when we are intimate that we make a concious choice to be straight/gay/bi?

I presume neither of us are engaged in sexual activity at this precise moment in time. Which, following your logic, makes us both asexual.

And if you, as an asexual person can get married, then surely I, as an asexual person can get married, as well?

In my opinion, it is all a matter about raising a family. It is not about love, it is about favouring children with a Dad and a Mom to be a recognized member and know where they come from if possible.

Otherwise, why LGBT is not promoting 3 and infinite number of partners in a group that love each other ?

All logical sense disappears and it has nothing to do with legal rights since as mentioned above, one can ask additional rights by lawer about anything.

Personally, I don't want to imagine that I could be gay since I am married. Please respect the original definition that was given to the word marriage. Call a cat a cat.

If majority of people accept the fact that marrying is about love, then I wish I could marry several women. If open, then sky is the limit. If majority buys that, I am very OK.

The government has no business defining marriage to include certain heterosexuals and certain homosexuals and no one else. That is the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage laws. There is no marriage equality just different discrimination. The answer isn’t to recognize homosexual marriage. The answer is for the government to get out of the intimate lives of its citizens. Provide for civil relationships between any and all people who want the right to have others to visit them in the hospital. For those who want to get married in the traditional sense - go talk to a priest.

And is it your business to define what marriage is and say who can and can't get married?

Pedophilia has also survived for thousands of years so are we to believe that it is also genetic?

This has nothing to do with kiddy fiddlers, am not sure why those who would seek to deny two people in love the right to get married, always bring up this false equivalence.

The Left can’t seem to make up their minds.

Another non-starter. Being LGBT isn't down to what your politics are. There are gay people from all ends of the political spectrum.

I remember reading about the arguments against interracial marriage before that was recognized. 

Your view on how equality works could easily have been applied there.

Homosexual activists just love to piggyback their cause with those of black people - it’s shameful. Race and sexual orientation are not in any way synonymous. Sexual intimacy is something you do. Race is an immutable trait. You don’t actively decide which race you are (though quite a few lunatics in the US have been caught trying to pull that one off). Sexual relationships are a conscious choice - because it is an activity. If you do not engage intimately with another person you are neither heterosexual or homosexual. You would be considered asexual.

Now I have no problem acknowledging that a minority of people are attracted to people of the same sex. But their are also a lot of other different types of sexual attraction. Adults to children, between close relatives, bisexuals with both other men and women at the same time, etc etc.. Wouldn’t it therefore logically follow that marriage law should accommodate everyone else who also cannot help it who they love? Unfortunately that is the path modern societies have decided to walk down.

I sincerly don't understand how can the societies be so divided over that.

Me neither. I cringe at the cool, posturing types who love to talk about their LGBT friends, but I’d take them any day over those who seem to think fellow, law-abiding, consenting citizens don’t deserve the same rights as others.

Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex.

On a broader point, I think marriage will fade into obsolescence in more progressive societies anyway, and this trend was apparent long before same-sex marriage became more acceptable.

Then why has it survived over millennia?

That answer was for those who think homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. Pedophilia has also survived for thousands of years so are we to believe that it is also genetic? The implications for the genetic explanation are very destructive to a healthy society.

The Left can’t seem to make up their minds. On the one hand they believe that people are born homosexual while simultaneously believing that sexuality is a spectrum that people can traverse along over time (ie choosing their sexuality). They hold both of these concepts in their minds at the same time and somehow cannot detect any logical inconsistency.

Marriage to one's love is a right given to heterosexuals in Japan, denied to homosexuals. The problem is denial of rights to citizens of the country.

There are a lot of laws that prevent marriages between people who are in love. One heterosexual man cannot marry two heterosexual woman - even though he loves them both with all his heart. A woman cannot marry his adult son - yes, there are people like that. Aren’t we not supposed to judge who other people love?

The problem isn’t love between two (or more) people, it is that the government has to stick its nose into people’s bedrooms. The government has no business defining marriage to include certain heterosexuals and certain homosexuals and no one else. That is the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage laws. There is no marriage equality just different discrimination.

The answer isn’t to recognize homosexual marriage. The answer is for the government to get out of the intimate lives of its citizens. Provide for civil relationships between any and all people who want the right to have others to visit them in the hospital. For those who want to get married in the traditional sense - go talk to a priest.

I sincerly don't understand how can the societies be so divided over that. People against that, how are you going to get impacted by it, what's going to change in your life (other than being glad to live in a society which give everyone the same rights) ? Does it impact your self esteem, pride or whatever ?

Yes there have always been people who choose to engage in homosexual activities. But it doesn’t comport very well with Darwinism.

Then why has it survived over millennia?

They have the same rights as everyone else, everyone else cant marry their same sex partner either, everyone else can only marry the opposite sex, same for everyone, they treated the same !

Everyone else can only marry a member of the opposite sex too its equal for everyone.

Two everyday people in love - and they aren't allowed get married.

So, no.

They don't have the same rights here.

I never understood why do gay people care about legalising same-sex marriage. Do whatever you want with your partner, why should the government issue a law to tell you "it's ok to do that"?

Agreed, abolish all marriage, especially heterosexual marriage.

Yes there have always been people who choose to engage in homosexual activities. But it doesn’t comport very well with Darwinism. Therefore it will never likely constitute a majority of the people - at least not for long.

I always ask people who come out with such nuggets when they chose to engage in heterosexual activities...

As if you can choose your orientation. What is a homosexual or heterosexual activity, anyway?

They want the lifestyle to be considered normal.

It is normal.

LGBT people have loving relationships just like any other couples.

What's abnormal is the amount of people out there who want to deny equality to their fellow human beings.

How can there be equal rights for the LGBT when there's no equal rights for women? Even with comfort rooms, we are only given 2 options she or he and nothing in between! Don't have bad feelings against the gay community. Got friends on both sides but I don't believe they have to spend time and money just for this. If worse come to worst for some gay couple they could execute wills and power of attorneys to smooth things over.

Aren't they related?

Marriage to one's love is a right given to heterosexuals in Japan, denied to homosexuals. The problem is denial of rights to citizens of the country.

The whole point is that the requirements deny rights. Apparently you missed that. You could catch yourself up by reading the article at the top of this page.

I think laws created should work to remove ethnic, moral, and emotionally based values from decision making processes. With that said, all of this easily fixed. Japan can define marriage as a union between of a man and a woman, then also create a civil union parity law that grants the same benefits as marriage. This allows for common law marriages, hyphenated names, and everyone under the sun. Next; the removable of sex organs seems a bit barbaric, given how most hormones to reassign sex practically makes those organs useless. I'd remove that law an allow for insurances to cover ONE sex change. The biggest problem in the end with an equality law, is pinning down explicit issues and creating laws which makes other feel like a group of people are being treated special.

Yes there have always been people who choose to engage in homosexual activities. But it doesn’t comport very well with Darwinism. Therefore it will never likely constitute a majority of the people - at least not for long

Homo sapiens are both individualistic and highly social. We arguably owe are survival much more to the collective choices and outcomes of our societies. All of our lives are highly shaped by people outside our immediate family bloodlines, by people who don’t have children, by people we will never meet. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. One might also say it takes a village full of villagers to have a village. LGBT people contribute in countless ways, just as heterosexuals do. Many LGBT couples have children and/or adopt children where it is legally allowed. Homosexual behavior has also been exhibited in many other species.

I was taking exactly about requirements. If you meet them you can get married

Is love required here to be married?

Why are you talking about requirements when we were talking about rights? Was it a purposeful attempt to detract from your argument falling apart?

When did homosexuals in Japan gain the right to marry the person they love?

I am not commenting about love, I don't actually know the laws here in Japan. Is love required here to be married?

They have the same rights as everyone else, everyone else cant marry their same sex partner either, everyone else can only marry the opposite sex, same for everyone, they treated the same !

I remember reading about the arguments against interracial marriage before that was recognized.

Your view on how equality works could easily have been applied there.

But they do have the same rights.

When did homosexuals in Japan gain the right to marry the person they love?

But they do have the same rights.

I don't personally know of married homosexuals here in Japan but I know of ones in my country.

But I'm certain there are a lot of married homosexuals here in Japan as well.

They have the same rights as everyone else, everyone else cant marry their same sex partner either, everyone else can only marry the opposite sex, same for everyone, they treated the same !

No, straight people are allowed to marry those they love in Japan. Homosexuals are not. They do not have the same rights.

They have the same rights as everyone else, everyone else cant marry their same sex partner either, everyone else can only marry the opposite sex, same for everyone, they treated the same !

Everyone else can only marry a member of the opposite sex too its equal for everyone.

there very simple .................

Except it isn't as simple as that genetically speaking research shows that some genetic markers are different in LGBT people and "Several studies have found a correlation between gender identity and brain structure" so for them to be "treated the same" that must also be taken into account since they are not the same as straight males or females. In layman's terms there are different types of humans male, female, and LGBT. Therefor they don't have the same rights as everybody, Straights can marry straights and LGBT should be allowed to marry LGBT.

They have the same rights as everyone else, everyone else cant marry their same sex partner either, everyone else can only marry the opposite sex, same for everyone, they treated the same !

Everyone else can only marry a member of the opposite sex too its equal for everyone.

there very simple .................

I can't understand the animosity toward people who just want equal rights. They aren't asking for new or special rights, just the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

LGBT may not be as common as straight, but MANY people identify as LGBT and homosexuality has always been present throughout history and in other animal species.

Yes there have always been people who choose to engage in homosexual activities. But it doesn’t comport very well with Darwinism. Therefore it will never likely constitute a majority of the people - at least not for long.

What if their partner is in the hospital? 

There is an easy solution to this problem that applies to unmarried heterosexual couples as well. Allow people to designate a civil associate of one or more people that allows them to visit you in the hospital. Easy fix - move on. It’s none of the government’s business who anyone is having an intimate relationship with regardless of sexual preference.

Being gay is normal.

LGBT may not be as common as straight, but MANY people identify as LGBT and homosexuality has always been present throughout history and in other animal species.

Good on these people for fighting for what's right and they deserve to have the same privileges as any members of the society.

How dare human beings demand to be respected as human beings the pure gall of these fellow human beings.

In my view the Japanese Government's refusal to change the law is absurd.

I am legally married to my Japanese partner in my home country of New Zealand and in our mutually adopted country of Australia, but when we step through Japanese Immigration at the airport we are suddenly no longer married!

Why?

The marriage laws in Australia and New Zealand are virtually identical to those in Japan, but marriages performed under those laws are only legal in Japan if they are between a man and a woman. Why the difference?

Do people from Islamic countries married under Islamic law suddenly become single when they enter Japan because Islamic law is not recognised here?

Then there are the issues of visas, hospital visits, inheritance rights - all manner of rights and privileges that accrue to married couples that are not available to us.

Japan needs to get into the modern era with this and stop pretending that a person's sexual identity is anyone else's business.

Strangerland is right I hate to say that, but it's not just about legal rights. They want the lifestyle to be considered normal.

Wow. You understand nothing of the law in regards to marriage. What if their partner is in the hospital? If they’re not married they may as well not even know each other when it comes time to make legal decisions.