national

Sapporo, Osaka make LGBT couples eligible to receive support money

34 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments

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

I’m against this decision.

Do you have a principled reason, or you just don’t support people doing what they want when it involves same-sex partners?

11 ( +16 / -5 )

”I'm against this decision” ..

Get used to it !

9 ( +18 / -9 )

Bugle Boy of Company B

I’m against this decision.

Why are you against it? Is it because they are not legally married?

Do you support them not having to pay taxes then?

Or are you against anybody, being legally married, from getting this support?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Why would they refuse anyone support. Why does race, sexual preference, gender make any difference at all? Support is for all people of Japan and foreign residence. Is their announcement expecting a pat on the back? The law is the law.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Sapporo, Osaka make LGBT couples eligible to receive support money

This is the headline, but the story is about only one minor and very specific form of support money. It's a step forward, but I think it is fair to assume there will be other, far more common forms of support money LGBT are not eligible for.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Good for them.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Same sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as female/male couples.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Small steps ...

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This helps no one in the long run, let alone same-sex couples, by undermining legitimate claims to government benefits and to marriage itself.

Not according to the advocates quoted in the article. Any amount of many would help the victims of violent crime.

(What is marriage? Nature and reason inform us that marriages are the long-term unions of a complementary pair, a man and a woman.

Where does marriage exist in nature? Perhaps you mean monogamy or long term coupling behavior in animals. Guess what? Gay couplings have been observed in the wild, so I'm not really sure what nature has to do with anything here.

 So marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of society. Families and marriage are, therefore, logically prior to society.)

Not if your infertile, old, or simply don't want kids. Do people in these categories chip away at the roots of society?

You cannot chip away at the root of civilization, marriage and the family, without their being negative consequences for all.

Serious question: How does paying compensation to homosexuals whose partners have been harmed or killed due to violence chip away at the root of civilization?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I think marriage should be limited to man-woman unions.

Why?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What is marriage? Nature and reason inform us that marriages are the long-term unions of a complementary pair, a man and a woman. This pairing is the beginning of a family that may later produce children. So marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of society. Families and marriage are, therefore, logically prior to society.)

Utterly incorrect. Marriage is a contractual recognition of a couples relationship that imposes benefits and burdens on the couple.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What would you have said to the anti-interracial marriage types in the past who disagreed with marriage based on mutual consent?

They'd be totally against it and probably still are. The right aren't bringing their best.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Another move in the right direction, ie that same-sex couples have the same rights as other couples.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Why does race, sexual preference, gender make any difference at all?

Because the money is for family, ie spouses. Until recently same-gender spouses were not accepted on government registries, therefore, one could not receive spousal support money of any kind from the government. Now that some places are accepting them, they have to now update peripheral issues such as this.

What is marriage? Nature and reason inform us that marriages are the long-term unions of a complementary pair, a man and a woman.........Sapporo and Osaka cannot ultimately redefine marriage but they can damage this institution,

Oh, dry your tears and put your hanky away. Marriage is a bond between two humans to care for and support one another. Popping out kids is not nearly as important as the task of raising them. Last I checked the world was chock full of kids waiting, hoping or needing to be adopted, so even a same-sex couple can have a real family. This is good for society. This is progress. This is adding to marriage, not taking from it.

Marriage, the family and society have been breaking down in industrialized nations for long before legal acceptance of same sex unions were a thing. Blaming same sex unions now is just pathetic scapegoating from people who lost the fight to get society to preserve the family.

You cannot chip away at the root of civilization, marriage and the family, without their being negative consequences for all.

There I agree but its just you don't know what is chipping at that root and what isn't. People are not getting married because its some elite hetero club, and won't stop getting married because it isn't.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@Ah_so.

Moved on is a stretch, the world has changed for sure but a lot of people don't think it's moved forward, rather descended into chaos.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Moved on is a stretch, the world has changed for sure but a lot of people don't think it's moved forward, rather descended into chaos

When did it stop moving forward and descend into chaos on the issue of gays?

In the past they were executed, whipped, physically or chemically castrated etc. in what we would now call civilized countries. There are still some countries who throw them off buildings, whip them, imprison them etc.

When did we descend into chaos on this issue?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

*couple’s

The idea it should be limited to a man and a women is laughable and archaic. We live in the 21st century, not the 17th century.

Some claim sex sex marriage eroded society, etc., but that simply isn’t true. Same-sex relationships are far more stable than heterosexual relationships.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Moved on is a stretch, the world has changed for sure but a lot of people don't think it's moved forward, rather descended into chaos

It’s definitely a result of same-sex couples. Those people are constantly blowing things up, but invading other countries, rioting, looting, and beheading people.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes.

And?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Because I do not support special privileges for people who think their relationship is equal to a marriage.

Why is a consensual bond between two men or two women unequal to a consensual bond between a man and a woman?

If you don't like same sex marriages, then don't get into one. Your opinion reads like "I like chocolate cakes, therefore, only chocolate cakes should be allowed to exist. Especially since I hate strawberry cakes. Strawberries are a recent creation and therefore, an abomination.".

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I think marriage should be limited to man-woman unions.

You might do, but it is now an old fashioned social attitude and I've which will die out soon enough, outside of religious fundamentalist minorities.

So hold your belief all you want, but the world has moved on.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I will not address all the responses to my earlier comment due to said responses being straw man arguments.

What a long-winded way to say you have no rebuttal. Did you even read the article?

A loving and compassionate society never purposefully creates broken families. Let us see if Sapporo and Osaka will retreat from policies that do create broken homes.

Apparently not. Compensating the survivor of a same sex marriage whose partners was victim of a violent crime on no way creates broken families. How absurd.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Marriage has changed so many ways since ancient times. Marrying your own father, mother, brother or sister is now illegal or at least frowned upon. The legal age of marriage is now generally well above 8 years old. We get to choose our own spouse now rather than have our parents decide. No more stonings for sex outside of marriage in most places now. Men are no longer allowed to beat their wives. Spouses can refuse to make more children.

These are all huge fundamental changes. Its interesting what some people insist is going to destroy human civilization, and what won't.

The sad thing is though, since the anti people are tainting everything they say with silly arguments, no one is going to listen when they rightly point out that breakdown of the family is harming society pretty badly. Its just too bad that they cannot see that families based on a same sex marriage are part of the solution.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think this is a more than reasonable accommodation to add LGBT couples into this.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I will not address all the responses to my earlier comment due to said responses being straw man arguments.

However, I do agree that, sadly, recent generations have been afflicted with an unhealthy marriage culture due mainly to no-fault divorce, a piece of diastrous public policy. Broken families, e.g. cohabitating opposite-sex couples, have become too common.

Now we are being afflicted with a new piece of defective public policy, Marriage Deconstructionism, which is wending its way into Japan.

(What is Marriage Deconstructionism? Marriage Deconstructionists are those who hold the view 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 society’s changing conditions. However, this view is empty and groundless due to its failure to recognize what reality and nature have clearly dictated, i.e. marriages are the long-term unions of a man and a woman which begin a family, the base of society, where such unions may produce children.)

A loving and compassionate society never purposefully creates broken families. Let us see if Sapporo and Osaka will retreat from policies that do create broken homes.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Should we give such support also for siblings living together in a long term (platonic) relationship? Why or why not? And what about polyamorous relationships?

When people are supporting each other they can get some form of recognition for that. But when you are explicitly supporting certain sexual relationships, you are also supporting a certain view about sexual morality.

The reason that homosexuality became more acceptable nowadays is mostly because of the unproven myth that people are born that way and have no other choice than to find happiness in a homosexual romance.

As for the marriage question, I recommend looking up this article and its following pages: "Redefining Marriage, Part 1: Who’s to Blame?" Quote: "Marriage has been redefined for decades in our society, and it isn’t homosexuals or politicians who have done it. It’s our culture as a whole. (...) The fact that same-sex “marriage” is even thinkable, that it is increasingly defined to be a “right,” is both a symptom of our culture’s worsening marriage problem and an obstacle toward recovering a healthy marriage culture."

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Just because of sex orientation doesn't constitute a reason to deny monetary stimulus. LGBT are still created as men and women. Their vindication of gender is upon them.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Good for them. Further proof that Japan is very tolerant toward LGBTQIIA+ people.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Why are you against it? Is it because they are not legally married?

Because I do not support special privileges for people who think their relationship is equal to a marriage.

Do you support them not having to pay taxes then?

If they don't earn money, sure.

Or are you against anybody, being legally married, from getting this support?

I think marriage should be limited to man-woman unions.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

This helps no one in the long run, let alone same-sex couples, by undermining legitimate claims to government benefits and to marriage itself.

The Sapporo and Osaka governments did not create marriage but simply have done what every other government has done. Create laws to protect that which already existed, marriage.

(What is marriage? Nature and reason inform us that marriages are the long-term unions of a complementary pair, a man and a woman. This pairing is the beginning of a family that may later produce children. So marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of society. Families and marriage are, therefore, logically prior to society.)

Sapporo and Osaka cannot ultimately redefine marriage but they can damage this institution, and every member of society, by treating non-marriage couplings as marriages. The unique government benefits for marriage are there to protect this vital base of society, not to stabilize every relationship pair, and ignoring this fact is always poor public policy.

You cannot chip away at the root of civilization, marriage and the family, without their being negative consequences for all.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

”I'm against this decision” ..

Get used to it !

Im already used to being against it.

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

Do you have a principled reason, 

Yes.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

They are ‘making’ people accept money?

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

I’m against this decision.

-26 ( +5 / -31 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites