Should same-sex couples be entitled to equal social security benefits?

Wow. 11 yes votes to 3 at this stage. I think that's a good indication that the majority of foreigners in Japan came here because it's difficult being gay back home.

If "equal" means "the same as man/woman couples", then I'm ok with that.

Perhaps the voters believe in letting others live their lives when there isn't any down-side. For me, it is a form of respect towards other humans to let them decide how to live their lives. They shouldn't get more or less benefits just because they are gay.

Equality now!

Always been against the idea of social security myself, but if we're going to have it I can see no reason why same sex couples should be exempted.

Pay taxes don`t they?

I voted 'yes' as long as it is clear which one wears the skirt or the flannelet shirt.

couldn't believe people actually voted "NO".

I voted no, because if you have a same sex relationship that by nature isn't going to produce any children, then I think it is unfair that one of them could then theoretically quit his/her job and become a dependent of the other, thereby claiming taxpayer benefits that they are making no contribution towards (The same goes for childless housewives).

yup agreed with paps on this one

I think that's a good indication that the majority of foreigners in Japan came here because it's difficult being gay back home.

You're kidding, right? The stigma that surrounds homosexuality in Japan is positively medieval.

I think it is unfair that one of them could then theoretically quit his/her job and become a dependent of the other, thereby claiming taxpayer benefits that they are making no contribution towards

What, you think people can just quit their jobs, claim benefits and live off their partner any easier because they are gay? I am guessing by your statement that you are American and therefore have no concept of a welfare system that is there for the benefit of all, regardless of social standing, race or sexual preference. Am I right...?

papasmurf:

I voted no, because if you have a same sex relationship that by nature isn't going to produce any children, then I think it is unfair that one of them could then theoretically quit his/her job and become a dependent of the other, thereby claiming taxpayer benefits that they are making no contribution towards (The same goes for childless housewives).

That is more of a problem with STRAIGHT childless housewives. Stop blaming straight people's problems on gays. And what's your opinion on lesbians? They could ideally have twice the number of children as straight couples.

Gloobey:

What, you think people can just quit their jobs, claim benefits and live off their partner any easier because they are gay?

May I add that gay men are less likely to apply for welfare, and more likely to work for their money. Quitting you job so you can have tea with the gals every lunchtime and rely on the husband is what OL's and other female straight gold-diggers do, especially in Japan.

I don't think any couples, gay, straight or whatever, should be entitled to social security benefits simply on account of them being a couple. As far as taxes, benefits and suchlike goes, there's no reason for a childless couple to be seen as anything other than just two people. (Japan at present does treat a couple in which both partners are earning as two separate people when it comes to calculating taxes; the childless jobless wives of sararimen get a bit of a free ride.) I don't think half of a gay couple should be entitled to a free ride, but I don't think half of a straight couple should be, either. So equal benefits for all, Yes; but under the present system, No.

When children come along, you have a different situation altogether.

Why shouldn't they?

I don't quite understand what the poll is asking. Why would same-sex couples with children or childless, be treated any differently than a straight couple in the same situation? To me, that's like asking, "Should African-Americans get social security benefits?" or "Should women continue to be able to vote?" or "Should Asians be allowed to get married?"

Discrimination is discrimination. And as Mr. Mackey would say, "Discrimination is bad, umkay?" :)

I voted no, because if you have a same sex relationship that by nature isn't going to produce any children, then I think it is unfair that one of them could then theoretically quit his/her job and become a dependent of the other, thereby claiming taxpayer benefits that they are making no contribution towards (The same goes for childless housewives).

Interesting. Basically you, like Cleo, are against childless, stay-at-home spouses being included on the working spouse's income tax returns regardless of sexual orientation, right? (Theoretically, of course, the stay-at-home spouse could be the sole caretaker for four aging and ailing parents.) I'm not opposed to childless, stay-at-home spouses being a tax deduction for the working spouse, but I think they and same-sex couples should get the same treatment under the law.

So I voted yes, because the question seems to be: is equality under the law good?

borscht and others

Interesting. Basically you, like Cleo, are against childless, stay-at-home spouses being included on the working spouse's income tax returns regardless of sexual orientation, right?

yes, that sums up my views. I understand that gays shouldn't be singled-out, and that the whole system should be overhauled to ensure that people who actually need benefits get them, and those who don't shouldn't be entitled to them.

May I add that gay men are less likely to apply for welfare, and more likely to work for their money.

Pukey2 Some supporting documentation please.

I guess what it comes down to is, if the govt is unwilling to change the system to exclude childless housewives, should gay be included as dependents? Personally I don't think it makes sense to exasperate the problem by increasing the number of people entitled to freebies, but from an equality viewpoint I suppose there is little choice. It has nothing to do with my opinion of gays. I just don't like seeing our taxes wasted.

People should not be discriminated against just because of their sexual orientation (or there religious beliefs for that matter).

With a falling birth rate in this country, I'm not sure it's a good idea for Japan to reward same-sex couples who can't procreate by giving them SS benefits.

Theoretically, of course, the stay-at-home spouse could be the sole caretaker for four aging and ailing parents.

Of course, and the tax/social security laws should make allowance for that. What I and I think papa don't want is people of any orientation getting benefits they shouldn't be entitled to. If one partner earns enough for the other partner to be able to stay at home and be a full-time housekeeper (not looking after dependents, be they children or aged parents), there's no reason on earth why they should be entitled to freebies paid for from the taxes of people who cannot afford to stay at home.

I'm not opposed to childless, stay-at-home spouses being a tax deduction for the working spouse

If you're a working spouse with a non-working partner, then that's understandable. But how, from the point of view of equality under the law, can you justify it? Why should more affluent couples get tax breaks and other perks paid for out of the taxes of the less affluent?

Is equality under the law good? - Of course it is, that's why undeserved freebies should be done away with. Then we can have equality for all.

I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't have the same legal and social benefits that straight couples do. What does it matter? Its not like they are trying to trick the system. maybe its that its an acknowledgment that gay people actually exist, but that's just asinine. I do think, however, that gay people should not be allowed to get married. that is only for a man and women. BUT they should should be allowed to join as a couple both legally and sociably, just give it a different name.

Both should get same benefits - zero.

We should take responsibillity for ourselves - work, save, invest, provide for our dependents and retirement. Not constantly look to sponge off the taxpayers.

"Both should get same benefits - zero. We should take responsibillity for ourselves - work, save, invest, provide for our dependents and retirement. Not constantly look to sponge off the taxpayers."

Basically, I agree with you. You are responsible for your own success. But sometimes Fate hits you hard, and you find yourself in serious need and unable to rectify the situation without any fault of your own. Society should be ready to step in when that happens.

The stigma that surrounds homosexuality in Japan is positively medieval.

Something of an exaggeration. It was only legalized over the West since the 1960s. In even being legal, Japan is well ahead of most of Africa and the Middle East.

In terms of the question, what benefits could gay couples apply for anyway? Japan is hardly noted for an ultra-generous welfare state.

It was only legalized over the West since the 1960s

...Fifty years ago.

With a falling birth rate in this country, I'm not sure it's a good idea for Japan to reward same-sex couples who can't procreate by giving them SS benefits.

So, I'm going to make some assumptions here:

1) Individuals who work (legally receive income) pay into SS and at some point in the future receive some percentage of what they paid back after some set of conditions are met (e.g. retirement, inability to work when a certain age is reached, etc.)

2) Spouses/children of deceased individuals who have once paid into SS receive some percentage of what was paid after some set of conditions are met (e.g. death of spouse parent)

3) If a single individual who has paid into SS during any part of their life dies without a spouse or children that the government keeps that money.

This is about a person determining who would receive benefits from the money they contributed into the SS system. This is not currently afforded to non-married couples under current law. What in the world is wrong with allowing someone to choose who would benefit?

The argument that same sex partnerships can not have children and therefore don't deserve the same benefits is redundant when you take into account adoption.

The argument that same sex partnerships can not have children and therefore don't deserve the same benefits is redundant when you take into account adoption.

An adopted child/stepchild is eligible to receive the same social security benefits as any other child. Whether the child has a mummy and a daddy or two daddies or two mummies shouldn't make any difference.

Was not talking about the benefits the child gets, rather I was referring to the lame excuse that same sex marriage is not valid due to the inability to pro-create.

What you said is accurate.

In some places in the U.S., homsexual acts were decriminalized less then 5 years ago.

I was referring to the lame excuse that same sex marriage is not valid due to the inability to pro-create.

I think there are many people out there who are not against gay marriage, but will draw the line at gays adopting kids. This hurdle will have to be overcome before any talk of "equal" welfare benefits.

RomeoRamenII at 11:39 AM JST - 26th April

With a falling birth rate in this country, I'm not sure it's a good idea for Japan to reward same-sex couples who can't procreate by giving them SS benefits.

Wow, what a heartless person you must be. Its not a "reward", its a right to be treated as equal. A "reward" that would help solve this problem is more tax breaks for families with more children, whether conceived or adopted. Social Security benefits by their nature have little to do with the falling birth rate.

of course they do not...it is not a question of equality...it is a matter of the law