world

Australians rally in support of same-sex marriage

23 Comments

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

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

It's time to enter the 21st Century.

Hoping these voices will be heard.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Tony wont be defiance too long, every thing is bargainable on table in western world.That includes basic morale principles. You know he needs vote and his party will bow to political pressure. Catholics were very hypocritical !

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

History has shown us with 100% certainty that we cannot wait on rights for minorities or gays to be made into law by popular vote.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just give em the right and move on.Less aggro and gnashing of teeth.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I watched this debated on TV in Oz.

Someone tweeted in

Let them marry and be miserable like the rest of us.

Had to laugh.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What if the millions of other Australians that believe marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman decide to protest in mass? The silent millions who disagree with same sex marriage are present in every country. The rights same sex couples currently enjoy in the United States is fools gold as the fight is not over by a long shot. A constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage is coming in the future.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Only some third world countries and the US Republican party continue their opposition,

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Madverts

You don't see Japanese or Korean politicians / lawmakers coming out in mass to support same sex marriage. Are you saying Japan and Korea are "third world" countries? I don't think so. Thanks for playing...

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

^ Ok, how about 'mentality of a Third World country'...have a nice day, come back some other time bengoshi-san

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Exactly. Seems pretty third world to me.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You hear that ... ? That is the sound of inevitability.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Keep railing at the tide...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I hope these activists realize that they are also rallying for polygamy. Because every argument that is brought forward for "same sex marriage" applies also to polygamy, with the added aspec that polygamy actually has a long history in many cultures.

I seriously doubt that many of the so-called progressives have thought things through before jumping on the bandwagon.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I hope these activists realize that they are also rallying for polygamy.

No, they're pretty clear not.

Because every argument that is brought forward for "same sex marriage" applies also to polygamy,

And, no, not really.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#.Vcd-73jCve0

"Blandly asserting that there's no good reason to oppose polygamy once gay couples can marry makes no more sense than saying there's no reason to oppose date rape or securities fraud once gay couples can marry. It doesn't follow, and it isn't true, and the intellectual laziness implicit in asserting it is epic."

All in all, a pretty lame objection.

Next.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's time to enter the 21st Century.

But marriage seems so 20th Century.

Then they should allow marriage with animals

So long as there is mutual consent, why not?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

american_bengoshi: "You don't see Japanese or Korean politicians / lawmakers coming out in mass to support same sex marriage. "

Actually, parts of Japan are, and this was just in the news in case you missed it, allowing certificates for same-sex unions, my friend, and do not have any of the hostility or fear that your entitled white men back in your home nation have about it, either. So, now, Japan is NOT third-world about it; and they don't need to hold en masse protests or such efforts to get the rights because it's not quite the problem it is with the third-world notions -- or just stone-age mentality, if you like that better -- that some Americans have. Face it, you lost! and any attempts to ban same-sex marriage you try and bring back will be shot down, as will the politicians that promote it. Look at how eager the current round of potential candidates running for the Republican nod are in either embracing gay marriage, or else trying to avoid the topic altogether!

Australia knows this, and clearly the people are speaking and desiring to step into the current century. Marriage should not be limited to some antiquated, discriminatory Christian view; homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, plain and simple.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@smithinjapan

I read the news regarding Shibuya-ku & Setagaya-UK. What legal rights do those certificates actually provide same sex couples. NONE is the answer my friend. It's a way to save face because they don't want to provide legal rights to same sex couples. A few thousand people protesting in Australia means little while the silent majority of millions don't support it. Eventually the U.S. will amend the Constitution to ban it permanently. After that the same sex couples can flee to Europe. Putin was right to make it a criminal offense to discuss homosexuality with minors.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It's a way to save face because they don't want to provide legal rights to same sex couples.

This makes no sense - the status quo is to not provide any legal rights to same sex couples. They weren't losing any face by not doing anything, they were simply maintaining the status quo. There's no major push for same sex marriage in Japan, it's mostly been a non-issue up until now.

On the contrary, these two wards are opening up the conversation, and doing it in a bottom-up type manner. In Japan, this is the way to get things done.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Putin was right to make it a criminal offense to discuss homosexuality with minors."

Bengoshi-san, if you like putin so much, why don't you buy a plane ticket and go live there, yes?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

gcbel:

Thanks for posting the Politico article, but it makes a lot of assumption and misses the point. It correctly points out that one supreme court justice made the same argument, though.

As he points out, the restriction of the concept of "marriage" to 2 is artificial. If "one man + one woman" is dropped, where draw another line? The number "2" is completely artificial, and you can bet there are people with right now lining up to end that discrimination too.

Lets look: There are groups of people who really, really love each other? Check! There are people who are bisexual? Check! Is society preventing them from marriage now? Check! Are we inclusive? Check!

You and the Politico writer really have no standing in arguing for a "marriage" of two men, but against broadening the definition even further. Give it up.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

As he points out, the restriction of the concept of "marriage" to 2 is artificial. If "one man + one woman" is dropped, where draw another line? The number "2" is completely artificial, and you can bet there are people with right now lining up to end that discrimination too.

And no one has given a good reason why it shouldn't be.

But if there is one defining factor between same-sex marriage and polygamy, it's that people are born with same-sex attraction, they are not born polygamous. So while there isn't any good reason to deny polygamy, there isn't necessarily a driving reason to allow it either. That is not the same as same-sex marriage, where there is most definitely a good reason to allow it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strangerland:

" And no one has given a good reason why it shouldn't be. "

My point exactly. Once you step on the slippery slope, there is no end to this.

" But if there is one defining factor between same-sex marriage and polygamy, it's that people are born with same-sex attraction, they are not born polygamous. So while there isn't any good reason to deny polygamy, there isn't necessarily a driving reason to allow it either. "

Says who? You? There certainly are people who are attracted to more than one, and also to both sexes, which by definition makes 3 already. And you are seriously reducing the concept of "marriage" to "having sex"? So how about asexuals? They are not allowed to marry?

" That is not the same as same-sex marriage, where there is most definitely a good reason to allow it. "

Sorry, I still don´t see the reason. Nobody stops 2 men from living together and having sex today. But declaring that the two are same as a mother and father and should be approved by society as a constellation to raise children, that is a big step. And a historically new one.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

My point exactly. Once you step on the slippery slope, there is no end to this.

Yes there is. Each thing is evaluated on it's own merits, and if valid, is allowed. I'm sure when black people were given the right to vote, people said 'it's a slippery slope, next they'll want to let women vote'. Should they have not let black people vote on that merit? If that had been the case, neither black people nor women would be able to vote, simply because some people were worried about a slippery slope. And I can imagine them saying at the time 'next they'll want to let animals vote'. Has that happened? No. Even though they started on that slippery slope by letting black people vote.

The slippery slope argument is simply trying to get people to react in fear, instead of with logic. It's like morons who say 'next they'll let people marry their pets'. No they won't, and only someone who has a really low IQ would actually believe that.

Says who? You? There certainly are people who are attracted to more than one, and also to both sexes, which by definition makes 3 already.

Kids start to realize they are homosexual when they are still pre-pubescent. Because this is who they are, and how they were born. You go ask a bunch of kids how many feel they want to marry more than one person. You'll probably find some in Muslim countries - because it's a societal construct, not because it's something we're born with.

And you are seriously reducing the concept of "marriage" to "having sex"?

Please let me know when you're finished berating me for something I never said.

Sorry, I still don´t see the reason. Nobody stops 2 men from living together and having sex today.

Because they love each other, and people who love each other should be allowed to get married. Most of us already can.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Thanks for posting the Politico article, but it makes a lot of assumption and misses the point. It correctly points out that one supreme court justice made the same argument, though.

You're very welcome. Pretty obvious that you yourself missed the points made. But that's alright. You want to hold on to your deeply held belief and that's alright. You haven't been able to articulate any new or thoughtful argument against SSM, that's alright. You see, you've already lost the argument. Your approval isn't required.

You and the Politico writer really have no standing in arguing for a "marriage" of two men, but against broadening the definition even further.

Ah, but we do. I suggest you re read the article (if in fact you did read the article to start with). I doubt you really did.

Give it up.

I don't have to :-) at this point you're arguing on the side of increasing irrelevancy. You can keep trotting out the same tired old, and thoroughly debunked points, but not so slowly and surely, folks still holding that argument will be the modern day version of last centuries anti-miscegenation holdover, sad and irrelevant. Keep shakin' those lil fists.

The funny thing is that if you take the anti argument that hetero marriage is enshrined in millennia of history, they're actually making the argument for polygamy, group marriage!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites