national

Tokyo highlights LGBTQ rights before Olympics with Pride House

43 Comments
By Jack Tarrant

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

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments

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

So will the Tokyo Olympics set a new precedent and have trans athletes competing? Pride is good and all but don’t they want to be represented on the field as well?

-27 ( +4 / -31 )

"Many people might think that Japan is a human rights defender . . . "

Do they?

24 ( +29 / -5 )

What rights do LGBTQ people lack?

6 ( +24 / -18 )

Well done, LGBTQ rights are human rights..

Except for the "machito men" pseudo-christian trumpys and 21th century medieval minded losers..

-17 ( +7 / -24 )

So will the Tokyo Olympics set a new precedent and have trans athletes competing? Pride is good and all but don’t they want to be represented on the field as well?

Recognizing these people are also human is far different than suspending belief in biological science. Men who feel like women dominate every sport they enter as females, which is your point.

What rights do LGBTQ people lack?

In Japan, the right to get married and all the rights inherent in being married.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

What rights do LGBTQ people lack?

LMGTFY.

Marriage - a basic right - and all the rights that go with that, including to:

make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf when she is sick, or even visit the partner or the partner’s child in hospital;

take bereavement or sick leave to care or mourn for a partner, or a partner’s child;

share equal rights and equal responsibilities for children in their care;

have their partner covered under their health or employment benefits;

apply for immigration and residency if their partner is from another country;

file joint tax returns and enjoy tax benefits for couples, obtain joint insurance policies, or even rent or own property together;

get a fair settlement of property when the relationship ends;

inherit from a deceased partner if s/he lacked a valid will;

choose a partner’s final resting place;

obtain pension benefits if the partner dies.

You're welcome.

12 ( +25 / -13 )

What rights do LGBTQ people lack?

LGBTQ is NOT the right term to describe people who are NOT heterosexual. The word "Queer" is very offensive to the LGBTI+ people. In the UK this word is often used to insult people.

In many countries sex between two men or two women are punishable by law meaning such people at one point in their lives will have to seek refuge elsewhere to avoid prosecution and sometimes even a death penalty.

LGBTI+ people do NOT have the same metrimonial rights that the heterosexual people have. Today only a handful of countries recognise same sex marriages and thus even in most modern countries such as the USA, South Korea and Japan the matrimonial rights of such people are not recognised- leaving such people with financial & emotional losses.

However, the Tokyo Olympics is NOT the best place to highlight the problems of such people. Considering almost 1m people died of Corona focusing on LGBTI+ rights sounds a bit awkward to me. If the Japanese gov wants to do something about them, they can make a start by recognising the legal rights of such people, at the moment the same sex partnership certificates issued by municipalities in Japan is as useless as a blank paper.

-8 ( +8 / -16 )

The amount of ignorance around LGBT and the challenges they face is incredible and further evidence as to why we need these things to educate people on it.

But I hope that this isn't all for show at the Olympics, but it's a good step forward.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Keep politics out of sport please.

4 ( +17 / -13 )

The amount of ignorance around LGBT

Actually is about sex and sexuality in general. People are just as confused about heterosexuality and its all because open honest discussions of these things are stuck in Victorian thinking where from an early age we are taught to either outright avoid talking about such issues or we have to use so much euphemism and innuendo that confusion is guaranteed. This all goes well beyond LGBTQ.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

The year is 2020 cares what people personal sexual choices are treat everyone the same like you would want to be treated is that to hard to ask of the Modern World..

7 ( +10 / -3 )

i have many gay friends who are athletes. They say making being gay a special area, solidifies the image that they are some kind of freaks, and you can only whisper behind their backs.

But gay people are 10-12% of human population, and their is no serious study of Bisexuals as they tend to hide their sexuality. I’ve seen places in Tokyo full of gay bars, but never two women or men holding hand and cuddling in public.

This Olympics propaganda is just to justify. They are desperate. Next they will use cute little puppies and starving children in Africa.

gay people have rights!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Keep politics out of sport please.

No.

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

Vanessa yes, almost everybody is hung up about that stuff..... and....

there are plenty of people who have all sorts of hardships in all sorts of ways unrelated to sexuality..... we are each a minority-of-one, and life ain't easy all the time, or possibly any of the time....

12 ( +13 / -1 )

The civil rights issue of our time.  Once this battle is won the world will be a happier and safer place.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Marriage law applies to everybody equally.

You can only marry someone if the following conditions are met:

They are above a certain age.

They are not mentally retarded.

Their gender is different than yours.

They are not a close relative.

Doesn’t matter if you love your cousin, legally you can’t marry them.

The law is the same for everybody.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

"Society is filled with prejudice, discrimination and harassment towards LGBTQ community."

This is the sad truth. Japanese family law and other law are at least 100 years out of date. If you have a kid and get divorced (~40% of marriages end in divorce) only one parent can get custody. There are other ridiculous omissions as well. Unfortunately when most politicians are pushing 80 years old with no intent to retire, I am not optimistic.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

burning bush:

Marriage law applies to everybody equally.

You can only marry someone if the following conditions are met:

Their gender is different than yours.

That's like saying blacks can't drink from a certain water fountain and this rule applies to whites and blacks, so the law applies to everyone. Nonsensical.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

They should also address women's issues.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Burning BushToday  07:08 am JST

What rights do LGBTQ people lack?

In Japan? To list a few:

The right to marry their partner

Inheritance rights

Hospital visitation rights

Tax status rights

Same-sex partners are excluded from the Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims
3 ( +5 / -2 )

So now maybe we can see the issue of males competing in the female divisions tackled head on if some male athletes decided they want to compete in the other divisions instead.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ burning. Are you quoting from a 2000 year old, often changed gossip?

people should not be guided by soothsayers.

F pedos, incest etc. but if you are guided by some cult, leave honest descent folk alone. Being a gay athlete is not a crime.

How about to concentrate on the Popes mandate to stop followers to report pedos and corruption. He said stay silent on child rape. Don’t report. Google it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This sounds good to me. If the Olympics is supposed to stand for something, it is togetherness.

I wonder what this new center thinks about trans women in women's sports. As Navratilova shows, there is no agreement on this even within the LGBTQ "community" itself.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My post on how hostility, hate and oppression don't get solved they just get pushed around was erased but Goodlucktoyou made a nice post exemplifying it. Its basically stop hating gays and hate X, Y and Z instead followed by made up, contrived or only partially true "reasons", the same methodology that got the oppression of gays started. True, fair and widespread tolerance has never been a thing in all of human history.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This whole article is unintentionally dripping in irony.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sometimes lip service is better than no service at all. It will take time for acceptance to spread.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Burning Bush Today 11:36 am JST

Marriage law applies to everybody equally.

You can only marry someone if the following conditions are met:

They are above a certain age.

They are not mentally retarded.

Their gender is different than yours.

They are not a close relative.

Doesn’t matter if you love your cousin, legally you can’t marry them.

The law is the same for everybody.

This is an intentional misinterpretation of the issue, which is (and always has been) that people should have the right to marry your same sex partner. As marriage law in Japan specifies that the marriage must be between a two people of the same gender, it excludes same-sex couples from marriage. Thus, GLBTQIA do in fact not have the same access to marriage as heterosexual couples. Thus, marriage law is not applied equally to same sex couples and opposite sex couples.

Purposeful obtuseness doesn't make the point salient nor clever.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Thus, marriage law is not applied equally to same sex couples and opposite sex couples.

The law is applied equally that is why opposite sex couples can marry and same sex couples cannot. Its applied equally so underage persons and cousins can't marry also.

If same sex couples can marry it means this law is not applied to them.

So for same sex couples to marry the law must be amended or a new one created.

But speaking of individuals I know of gays who got married under similar laws, some even in church, so individuals have the same access.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

i@n Today 07:12 pm JST

> The law is applied equally that is why opposite sex couples can marry and same sex couples cannot. Its applied equally so underage persons and cousins can't marry also.

If same sex couples can marry it means this law is not applied to them.

So for same sex couples to marry the law must be amended or a new one created.

But speaking of individuals I know of gays who got married under similar laws, some even in church, so individuals have the same access.

What you are doing is playing semantics. The issue is not "does the law apply equally". The issue is, and has always has been, that the law does not allow equal access to marriage for both heterosexual and same-sex couples. There is no logical reason to exclude same-sex couples from being able to marry one another. It's simply discrimination based on sexual orientation.

We deserve to be treated the same as opposite-sex couples and be given the same access to marriage, which has many privileges that are not right now open to us. Opposing this is bigotry.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Japan lags behind many other developed nations when it comes to LGBTQ (and whatever letter is waiting to be added in the future) rights.

If by "lags" they mean "haven't gone mad with the issue by allowing former men, who clearly have an advantage, to compete against women" then yes, Japan indeed lags behind.

Like many other movements which started with good intentions, it's gone out of hand...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As I stated before, 10-12% of humans are gay. Denying us the right to have a normal socially acceptable position in society is totally unexceptable. Unless we have to wear pink triangles on our clothes in public or camps.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Japan lags behind many other developed nations when it comes to LGBTQ (and whatever letter is waiting to be added in the future) rights.

P will soon be added as California has recently passed SB-145.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"educate the world and also Japan of the difficulties the LGBTQ community has playing and enjoying sports"

The article discusses much about perceived societal discrimination but does not give any examples of LGBTQ people having 'difficulties' in playing sports and in enjoying sports. This Center will really be just an advocacy hall for an LGBTQ agenda inside Japan, using the Olympics as an excuse. It has nothing to do with playing sports or enjoying sports.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

P will soon be added as California has recently passed SB-145.

Indeed. It goes on and on - the quest for LGBTQ “rights”.

Pedophilia us the next frontier.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Gender confused persons already share the same rights as everyone else. As in marriage, the rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony already apply to all Japanese citizens equally. For personal reasons, most (but not all) same-sex attracted persons do not choose to exercise their right to marriage but this is a difference in their desire. Not a difference in equality. (Marriage Deconstructionists are actually demanding a new additional freedom. The legal freedom to deconstruct marriage to fit their own personal preference.)

Japan, along with the majority of nations, does not need to join the current sexual political agenda of removing objective standards of equality and marriage from society through the creation of policies and laws having nothing to do with justice.

Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about unjust laws in his appeal to Natural Law in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

 Nature and reason inform us that a man is not a woman, yet this pairing is complementary and the only natural union. Any law to the contrary is unjust.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Indeed. It goes on and on - the quest for LGBTQ “rights”. 

Pedophilia us the next frontier.

Those opposing interracial marriage said similar things.

Consent. Consent. Consent.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Those opposing interracial marriage said similar things. 

Consent. Consent. Consent.

Did they?

As for consent, Marriage Deconstructionists argue that marriage has no fixed, natural teleology, i.e. marriage is not anything in particular and is merely defined in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions. Therefore, no one against marriage, e.g. Marriage Deconstructionists, can argue that marriage between adults and children, humans and animals, could never take place because children and animals cannot consent. Who are Marriage Deconstructionists to say that a marriage is based on consent? Who are they to impose their own dogmatic definition of marriage upon others who do not conform to their narrow views of morality? In other words, as MDs often challenge, "What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

i.e. marriage is not anything in particular and is merely defined in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions. 

Allowing interracial marriage saw marriage change to meet changing conditions.

Who are Marriage Deconstructionalists to say marriage is based on consent?

People who think marriage should be based on mutual consent. It’s a belief that law-abiding, LGBT fellow citizens deserve the same rights as me.

Seems fair.

Who are the marriage traditionalists to say law-abiding, LGBT fellow citizens don’t deserve the same rights as me?

Seems unfair.

I like fair. Maybe it’s just me.

Who are they to impose their own dogmatic definition of marriage upon others who do not conform to their narrow views of morality?

You don’t have to have a non-heterosexual marriage. Nobody is forcing anything on you.

You are perfectly free to marry who you want.

Just like LGBT people.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Marriage Deconstructionists, can argue that marriage between adults and children, humans and animals, could never take place because children and animals cannot consent. Who are Marriage Deconstructionists to say that a marriage is based on consent?

Which other area of society do we let people do what they want to others without their consent? Who we are are responsible enlightened members of society. Unlike the morons that try explain how their vengeful sky fairy made gay people but somehow doesn’t want them to be together.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nobody who believes that transgender women are women, is able to explain the difference between a man and a woman. So I am asking you now: what is the difference between a man and a woman?

Transgender women are transgender women. They aren’t the same as women, nor are they men.

I feel pity for those among us without the intelligence to comprehend nuance. It must be a stressful life.

Children have a mother and father.

My father was an adoptee. Once again you clearly show you don’t know what you’re talking about.

That's why heterosexuality is more important than homosexuality.

No, a stable loving home is more important than any sexuality. Whether that home have zero dads, one dad, or two.

It’s extremely naive and simplistic thinking to believe that a heterosexual relationship equates to a healthy home for a child.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Transgender women are transgender women. They aren’t the same as women, nor are they men.

So you don't believe that transgender women are women. Sure. Then we agree about that. But that's the whole point. If you and I don't accept that transgender women are women, we are said to be transphobic by the LGBT community and its allies! And transgender women are not a third sex. There are only two sexes. Men and women. You can call transgender women transgender women, but they are still men. They are men who identify as women, who believe they are women, who want to live as women, but they can't change their sex, because nobody can change their sex. If you are born a man, you are always a man. You may look a lot like a woman through surgery and hormones, but that doesn't fundamentally change your sex.

My father was an adoptee. 

Your father had a biological mother and father, like every child. I think that's not too hard to understand, is it? We exist because of heterosexuality.

a stable loving home is more important than any sexuality.

It matters that children are as much as possible connected with their biological parents. The ideal home for a child is to live with its biological mother and father in a stable, loving relationship. First of all there's the responsibility of a man and a woman towards their own biological children and secondly children desire to know, to love and be loved by their own biological parents. Marriage helps protect this bond and responsibility. Aside from that, you can give a (temporary) home to children in any way you want according to the situation. You don't need to be married for that. Two sisters can do that, five cohabiting friends can do that, a single person can do that ...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Rolf Anderson Sep. 8 10:00 pm JST

Gender confused persons already share the same rights as everyone else.

There is no such thing as "gender confusion". It's called gender dysphoria. And people who have gender dysphoria technically have same rights as everyone, but they are very often discriminated against; which is why there need to be laws banning discrimination against them. As an example, it is discriminatory to not allow a transgender person to use the bathroom meant for people of their gender. So in that sense, due to discrimination, transpeople often don't have the same rights as everyone.

As in marriage, the rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony already apply to all Japanese citizens equally. For personal reasons, most (but not all) same-sex attracted persons do not choose to exercise their right to marriage but this is a difference in their desire. Not a difference in equality. (Marriage Deconstructionists are actually demanding a new additional freedom. The legal freedom to deconstruct marriage to fit their own personal preference.)

In Japan, same-sex couples are not given the same access to marriage that opposite-couples are. This is a form of discrimination, so yes, it is a "difference in equality", as you put it.

I'm also not sure why you would state that not all same-sex couples want to get married. That is not a reason to oppose same-sex marriage. After all, not all opposite-gender couples want to marry either.

I don't even know what you mean by "marriage deconstruction." Are you trying to say that when people don't want to get married, they are in effect trying to "deconstruct" marriage? Or are you trying to say that letting same-sex couples marry is "deconstructing marriage"? Either way, you really need to define what you mean by "deconstruct" because the use of that word here just doesn't make any sense.

Japan, along with the majority of nations, does not need to join the current sexual political agenda of removing objective standards of equality and marriage from society through the creation of policies and laws having nothing to do with justice.

Justice would be allowing every person, no matter their sexual orientation, to be able to marry the person they love.

Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about unjust laws in his appeal to Natural Law in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

He was talking about racial discrimination. At that point in time, the issues faced by GLBTQIA were not even on MLK's radar. But I have a feeling that MLK would have supported same-sex marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What you are doing is playing semantics. 

No I wasnt playing with semantics.

The language is plain and clear.

And if there are parts of the law that aren't clear you can always challenge the court for clarification.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites