Japan Today

Dirk comments

Posted in: Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional See in context

There are a lot of articles with arguments against polyamory. But you will never be able to prove that every polyamorous relationship is necessary going to be a failure. There could also be for example a successfull polygamous family like the one from Ziona Chana with 38 wives, where they end up building a whole village just for themselves and their children. But we can still advise to not put polygamy on the same level of recognition and acceptance as monogamy by legalizing such marriages.

As for arguments against polyamory. I will take some from realtalkphilosophy.org. - Human beings are deeply complex, messy, and flawed. Polyamory doesn’t take into account the reality of feelings of jealousy, feelings of possession, feelings of insecurity, fear, abandonment that naturally arise. - The flip side of experiencing so much love, is an inordinate amount of heartache and heartbreak. Having a greater number of partners increases the overall amount of emotional support a person needs to provide. Without a firm commitment, and the opportunity to explore other people, do you believe your partner will stick through this time with you? Would you? - Many people can’t find time to adequately support one partner, let alone 3 or 4. And this scarcity of time causes difficult choices to sometimes be made. One could envision a polyamorous utopia wherein all partners are treated with equal time and affection. Where all your lovers will be invited to your sister’s wedding. But this is rarely the case. A hierarchy, a pecking order is almost always established. And for a primary partner to be downgraded from their exclusive seat of supreme importance in the mind and heart of their lover can be devastating. - Once you find partners, the expectation that your partners will get along swimmingly is misguided. Sometimes that unicorn polycule is achieved where all partners involved love one another, but this is extremely rare. - It’s presumed that all of this potential for jealousy, and heartache, and fear can be remedied through conversation. But this often leads to exhaustive, tiring communication tearing apart the nuances of each action and feeling. This leaves many polyamorists longing for the days of having one simple, unshakable rule. Don’t sleep with other people. - Once the relationship gets more serious, the children must be considered. It can be extremely beneficial to be raised by several parental figures. But if one parental figure were to leave, and there wasn’t the institution of marriage stopping them, it can be extremely devastating for the child. - Maybe people have the presumption that there would be more love for everyone in a world absent of monogamy. But if we look at the animal kingdom, this isn’t actually the case. More than 90% of mammals practice not only polyamory, but polygyny, that is one male with multiple females. And as a result, we see what’s known as the Pareto Distribution or the 80-20 rule. That is, in the animal kingdom about 80% of females are partnered with only about 20% of males. And this is a problem. It’s been argued thoroughly that the primary reason human beings have so successfully dominated the planet is our unique ability to cooperate in such large numbers. But if only 20% of males have female sexual partners, there would likely be an unprecedented amount of fighting and competition within the species. Our ability to collaborate would crumble. So, a remedy for this fighting would be to ensure that every one male has one female. Monogamy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional See in context

"the starting point is more about equality than when one man has multiple wives."

Is it? Any data to back up this assertion, or is it just what you reckon?

Polygamous marriage has several disadvantages. One major disadvantage is the inherent inequality it creates . In monogamous marriage, spouses give themselves unreservedly and unconditionally to each other, while polygamy allows for multiple spouses, leading to a lack of exclusivity and commitment . Additionally, polygamy has negative effects on the social, economic, physical, and mental well-being of women . Factors such as illiteracy, being a wife of a husband with multiple other wives, current history of depression, intimate partner violence, and poor social support are significantly associated with suicidal behavior among wives in polygamous marriages . Furthermore, polygamy is a structurally inegalitarian practice, both in theory and in practice . These disadvantages highlight the need to minimize the practice of polygamy and its negative impact on individuals and society .

From "What are the disadvantages of polygamy marriage? | 5 Answers from Research papers (typeset.io)"

yet you see homosexual acts across nature.

I will never say that it doesn't happen (often). My point is only that it has not the same value as heterosexuality and so that it's not discrimination to give a unique form of recognition to sexual relationships between men and women, as the sexual component of these relationships has clearly and important function for society, which cannot be said about sexual intercourse between people of the same sex. I do very much support laws which may grant certain benefits related to inheritance or medical decisions to other people than a spouse or close relatives.

"The more you share your body with others, the less unique your union is with one person"

This is also not born of fact. Relationships are not exclusively sex, nor do they even need to be sexual.

I am only talking here about having sexual relationships with more than one person at the same time. If your point is that a sexual relationship is not negatively affected by having other relationships which are only platonic, then I have no problem with that.

"I am not saying that monogamy automatically translates into equality"

And neither can you logically say that polyamory translates into inequality.

Polyamory makes it more complicated to give equal attention to everybody. Thus there's a bigger risk for inequality. I guess with multiple partners of the same sex (like three men), you eliminate one factor of inequality as there's only one gender. However this debate to me is mostly about marriage. And polyamorous marriages don't exist at all in the broad sense that gender is no longer relevant. So that's why I compared polygamy (not polyamory) to monogamy. I doubt that we will quickly see polyamorous marriages. This would support the argument that gay marriage created a slippery slope and it would obviously require legalizing polygamy itself, and there I just don't see progressives making an argument in favor of it yet in media.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional See in context

Sexism and gender inequality exist despite monogamy being prevalent, so how can monogamy be the answer for attaining equality?

When comparing monogamy to polygamy, monogamy puts man and woman on the same level, whereas with polygamy you have multiple women for one man. This is a form of inequality.

Often, it doesn't. Remember when women were made to be in the kitchen? Your theory isn't very strong.

I am not saying that monogamy automatically translates into equality, but the starting point is more about equality than when one man has multiple wives.

Polygamy could also exist so that women do have more choice and I am not saying that this is always wrong, but there's always the idea that multiple wives have to support one man. It kind of puts a man in a superior position. And yes in monogamy a culture can put the man also in a superior position, but here I am simply comparing the basic idea of monogamy vs polygamy.

"The sexual union between man and woman loses its profound meaning for their relationship when they start sharing their bodies with others."

Not if they are both ok with sharing their bodies with others.

"It diminishes the meaning of love between one man and one woman.

No it doesn't."

Being ok with it, doesn't make you keep the meaning of having an exclusive union. The more you share your body with others, the less unique your union is with one person. This will always affect the experience of love in a relationship. It doesn't mean you will necessarily break up after a while, but you can't just ignore how being intimate with another person affects your feelings. Inevitably you will also start making comparisons. If you think polyamory is fine, then I wonder if your whole perception of sexual and emotional intimacy is not quite superficial to begin with. The more partners you have sex with in your life, the less meaning this has, to the point that you will not even understand what it could have been, if you would have shared all this with only one person.

"We literally exist thanks to heterosexual intercourse. You cannot even understand the difference between a man and a woman without this."

Sure you can. We are physically different. It's really not that hard to differentiate between men and women, unless maybe you have some mental deficiency.

Without procreation requiring both male and female, there would simply be no difference between a man and a woman, because man and woman would not exist. We would be a different species altogether.

"Polyamory and homosexuality aren't inherently of more or less value than monogamy or heterosexuality.

How does that make any sense at all?"

How does it not? Only deluded people with an overinflated sense of self-worth think it doesn't.

Even the most stupid animal, when it requires male and female for procreation, is able to understand through its instincts that homosexuality can not possibly be at the same level as heterosexuality. Otherwise it would not be very good at survival :-) Maybe if we would mass produce children in labs and downgrade our humanity to such an extent that it becomes irrelevant to love and be loved by your own biological parents, maybe then you could start thinking that homosexuality is somewhat on the same level as heterosexuality.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional See in context

Polyamory and homosexuality aren't inherently of more or less value than monogamy or heterosexuality.

How does that make any sense at all? We literally exist thanks to heterosexual intercourse. You cannot even understand the difference between a man and a woman without this. It's because heterosexuality is essential for our species that cultures for thousands of years have celebrated the relationship between man and woman (monogamy or polygamy) as something very unique and important. This is like a universal timeless understanding of society and our species which suddenly now is being explained as a form of discrimination.

Monogamy expresses the equality between man and woman. It also expresses the particular, exclusive nature of a man and a woman becoming father and mother of the same child. The sexual union between man and woman loses its profound meaning for their relationship when they start sharing their bodies with others. It diminishes the meaning of love between one man and one woman. Something that is less exclusive, loses at least part of its value. That's a general notion for many things.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional See in context

Just like legalizing polygamous marriages would diminish the value of monogamy, legalizing same sex marriages would diminish the value of heterosexuality and the relationship between mother, father and children. How can you still say that it's important for children to have a mother and father, when there's nothing unique anymore in society about the relationship between man and woman? It would even be considered as discrimination to say such a thing. And we know that whenever gay marriage becomes legal, adoption rights follow. So it's not correct to claim that marriage is only about a commitment between adults.

Once you argue that commitment between adults is sufficient for being accepted legally as marriage, there's also no good argument against siblings marrying each other and siblings are known to have long committed romantic relationships with each other. And certainly marriages between cousins then have to be allowed everywhere.

There's no discrimination against same sex relationships when we only legally recognize opposite sex marriages, because it's about two clearly different types of relationships, where heterosexual relationships are important for society while homosexuality is only a private matter. If straight couples would always be infertile that's when you could talk about discrimination, but the rule is that normally, sooner or later a man and woman have children together when they have a sexual relationship, and that's why throughout human history, virtually every culture has always given a unique form of recognition to the relationship between men and women.

We know that some people in polyamorous relationships also celebrate their love as a marriage. When you talk about this with supporters of same sex marriage, they often even admit that they have no problem with that. But somehow governments and judges don't care about that. It cannot be a legal marriage because it still has to be only between two people. Doesn't make much sense anymore once you consider marriage as only about commitment between adults and legal benefits corresponding with their relationship.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Posted in: Japan's top court rules law requiring reproductive organ removal for gender change unconstitutional See in context

How is this unconstitutional? I think allowing people to register a gender change should only be possible for intersexual people, meaning people with birth defects related to gender, but not for people with only psychological ideas about being the other gender. Now if you can change your gender without even any physical change, then man and woman simply lose all meaning. Or let's say that man and woman become entirely subjective ideas. Any one can call themselves a man or a woman (or both) now, according to what they personally consider what a man or woman is. This is about altering reality to conform with what someone likes or wants. And then this also means society needs to believe that someone can truly be a man or a woman, simply by saying so. Totally crazy. And real women will be the victims of this, as they need a separate category for their gender, more than men. We can see the harm being done of this idea that transwomen are women in various countries already. And then there are the children who become convinced that they are the opposite gender and are put on a lifelong path of medicalisation and gender mutilation. That's a crime.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Posted in: Japanese opposition party submits bill to approve same-sex marriage See in context

But has a very real legal standing in modern human history. 

Nope. The concept on which it is based has no legal standing at all, not even in countries which have legalized same sex marriage, because no country in the world has ever stated in their laws that freedom of choice or freedom to love is the only requirement for getting legally married.

Marriage as a human right was recognized by the United Nations in the 20th century, with every member state recognizing marriage as only between man and woman and with no intention at that time to legalize gay marriage. It's certainly not something from only 1000 years ago and has nothing to do with bigotry at all.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Posted in: Japanese opposition party submits bill to approve same-sex marriage See in context

Same sex marriage is based on a concept of marriage which has no legal standing in human history. It pretends that people have a right to legally marry someone purely based on choice/love. If that would be true, all countries supporting so called marriage equality should also lift the ban on marrying a close relative , or the ban on more than one partner. But this never happens, because then they would have to recognize that they created a slippery slope and that gay marriage is in fact based on a radical redefinition of marriage, breaking with thousands of years of shared human history.

What caused the current redefinition of marriage is more like what Steven D. Greydanus wrote: "A contraceptive culture is a divorce culture, a cohabitation culture, a pornography culture. Same-sex marriage is inevitable in a contraceptive culture, because a contraceptive culture can have no coherent understanding of what marriage is, or even what sex is."

I consider the unique recognition of the relationship between man and woman as the most beautiful and long lasting tradition in the world. It express the beauty of the complementary difference between man and woman and the importance of being raised by your own mother and father. Marriage is simply the word that is used for this type of relationship. There's no good reason to give the same status of recognition to same sex couples, just like we don't have to for example legalize marriages for polyamourous relationships. And you can always give certain rights related to health care and inheritance in different ways than through marriage.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Posted in: Nintendo Japan officially provides spousal benefits to same-sex partnerships See in context

"any two people in a common-law partnership". Why not three? What about two brothers living together? Love is love? Why should different types of relationships be given the same kind of recognition?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Posted in: Japanese same-sex couple overjoyed by marriage ruling See in context

Before same-sex marriage was legal, there was zero divorce among lesbians because they couldn't get married

That's not what Ms Drew is trying to explain. She regrets converting her own civil partnership to a marriage. ‘We were much more relaxed as civil partners than as a married couple,’ she said. Getting married puts pressure on lesbians to adopt roles more typically associated with heterosexual couples. Etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Japanese same-sex couple overjoyed by marriage ruling See in context

Here's some food for thought:

The founder of Britain’s first fertility clinic for same-sex couples, Nathalie Drew, believes the legalisation of gay marriage has resulted in a soaring divorce rate among lesbians. Government figures in UK recently showed that divorces among lesbian couples were about three times higher than those among gay men. It came as the overall number of divorces in England and Wales saw their largest rise for nearly half a century. Natalie Drew’s concerns over gay marriage, which was introduced in 2014, have grown since she discovered that about a third of the 586 lesbian couples she helped to have babies between 2011 and 2015 have split up. Ms Drew, 45, whose own same-sex marriage ended last year, believes the breakdown of many lesbian relationships today is caused by couples rushing into traditional married life that they may be unsuited for. 'I don’t think the law should have changed from allowing gay people to have civil partnerships to actually getting married,’ she said.

Ms Drew suggested that getting married put pressure on lesbians to adopt roles more typically associated with heterosexual couples. ‘You get caught up in these expected roles, one being the breadwinner, going out earning the money, and one being the mother,’ she said. ‘There’s an expectation you’ll fit into these traditional roles because you’ve done the norm, you’ve done what everyone else has done and got married. ‘But we are not the norm. And I think this causes an imbalance, because the one going out to work feels left out of motherhood.’ She feels too many female couples had rushed into marriage, saying: ‘With lesbian couples, everything happens so fast. They move from a relationship into marriage, sometimes within months. There’s no steady, easy-going dating process.’ Ms Drew regrets converting her own civil partnership to a marriage in 2015. ‘We were much more relaxed as civil partners than as a married couple,she said.

Kanak Ghosh, of the ONS, said that since same-sex couples have been able to marry in England and Wales from 2014, there has been an increase in divorces year on year. He added: ‘Unreasonable behaviour, which includes adultery, was the most common ground for divorce among same-sex couples this year, as almost two-thirds of couples divorced for this reason.'

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: In landmark ruling, Japanese court says same-sex marriage ban 'unconstitutional' See in context

The thing about LGBTQ+ is that to a certain extent everybody can identify as such. It depends on which interpretation you give to certain feelings or character traits. How many times do you have to experience attraction to someone of the same sex to be at least a bit bisexual? How many traits do you need to have which are more related to the opposite sex to be at least partially trans? I could myself identify as slightly bisexual and trans exactly because of such ambiguity. Some also claim that everybody is bisexual or that there's an infinite number of genders. And to experience something that relates to LGBTQ doesn't mean you have to agree with everything a certain vocal majority from the LGBTQ community says. There are for example also people who openly identify as gay but still disagree with for example same sex marriage or even that homosexuality is a good thing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: In landmark ruling, Japanese court says same-sex marriage ban 'unconstitutional' See in context

"people are lobbying for the right to marry the person they love. This is a fundamental human right."

Nope. There's not a single legal system in human history which has ever recognized that right. If you want to have a private marriage ritual you can do whatever you want, but marriage was never about marrying the person you love without any restrictions. As pointed out before, those restrictions are typically based on age, number of partners, degree of blood relationship and sex. The universal declaration of human rights in 1948 declared marriage as a human right, but the signing countries never used that right to abolish all existing restrictions. It said: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Restrictions related to age, sex, number of partners or degree of blood relationship were still valid. To understand more about what marriage is, how people started redefining it and why this matters for society, I suggest you look for the article "Redefining Marriage, Part 1-10: Who’s to Blame? The Root of the Problem".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Japanese firms back same-sex partnership certificate campaign in gay rights push See in context

If it's about measures to recognize certain rights of people sharing their lives outside of marriage, then that's understandable, but I don't think there should be any support at all for homosexuality itself.  If people want to act like that, it's not illegal, but why should it be recognized by society as something worthy of respect?

And when they talk about marriage, they try to to obtain the same social status as heterosexual relationships. But the reason heterosexual relationships have obtained a certain social status is because the relationship between man and woman is important for society, for our survival. It's like wanting the same medal without offering a similar contribution to society. This is a clear form of decadence introduced by Western culture and it certainly shouldn't be adopted by other cultures.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: 'Queer Eye' mini-series takes detour to Japan See in context

Maybe it's not birth - maybe it's a chemical in the air. What would that matter?

We are born as a heterosexual species because of our genitals. The only way to put homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality is by pretending that we can be as much conditioned by homosexuality as by heterosexuality (meaning that we are born that way). That's how the gay movement became a movement about gaining equality.

When homosexuality is caused by a chemical in the air, it's obviously not as much part of our identity as heterosexuality, because chemicals in the air are not part of our physical anatomy.

The whole point about being born that way, is that they are that way not by choice. Expecting them to stop being gay because you don't like it, is expecting them to be something they aren't.

Our feelings are never a choice and for sure we can't simply expect people to stop having feelings, but we do have a choice about what we do with those feelings. When I feel jealous, I didn't choose to feel that way and people can't expect me to stop feeling jealous, but I have a choice about what I do with those feelings. If I am angry about something at my job, people can still expect me to act without showing my anger towards the customers. We are not like animals who only know how to act based on impulses.

There's a long list of (weird) forms of sexual behavior or fantasies (paraphilia) and as they are all about erotical sensations, nobody chooses any of them. And while we can't force people to not have such feelings, we can still expect them to not promote them in public, to not introduce them in the education system, to not claim that people are suffering from some kind of phobia for feeling aversion (this is also something we don't chose) towards some form of sexuality.

The reason homosexuality is treated differently from all the paraphilia is because of the idea that we are born that way. For sure pedophiles, sadomasochists, nymphomaniacs etc didn't choose to be that way, but have you heard a lot about them being born that way? If we would claim that pedophiles are born that way, then suddenly the whole 'born this way' argument would lose all of its meaning for accepting homosexuality. And similarly, whether or not it's a choice, doesn't matter. What matters is which meaning something has. Feelings can be interpreted in multiple ways. Understanding yourself can be quite complex. We are being influenced by theories and examples from others and maybe we never heard about the correct interpretation of our feelings.

Nowadays LGBT is simply an ideology focused on normalising homosexuality and gender confusion that is being pushed into every corner of society wherever possible. This doesn't help anyone.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: 'Queer Eye' mini-series takes detour to Japan See in context

And yet, gay people continue to be born

Except that … we don't know that. Being born gay is a myth that was deliberately created to gain rights. You can find more about that by looking up Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen and the 'born gay hoax'.

The official position of the APA (which is actually very supportive of homosexuality) is that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

A study this year, conducted by Christine Kaestle (Sexual orientation trajectories based on sexual attractions, partners, and identity), has indicated that a sexual orientation can change until late in the 20s. "The study, which analyzed surveys from around 12,000 students, found that substantial changes in attractions, partners and sexual identity are common from late adolescence to the early 20s, as well as from the early 20s to the late 20s. This indicates that the development of sexual orientation continues long past adolescence into adulthood."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Movements to create safe learning spaces for sexual minorities at universities gaining traction See in context

"deepen students' understanding of issues and provide support for the LGBT community."

In practice, this strongly tends to translate into convincing everybody that homosexual acts are morally good and equally normal and natural as heterosexual acts, that recognizing same sex marriage by law is a human right, that children don't need a mother and father, and that transgender women/men are real women/men, no different than other women/men. And if you don't agree, you are a bigot who makes people commit suicide.

And after they successfully silenced nearly all opposition, they will have solved nothing because they will still be depressed and commit suicide, as can be seen in many countries nowadays where a strong increase in LGBT acceptance has not significantly diminished health concerns in the LGBT community.

So called "understanding of LGBT issues" is more like a form a denial of most problems in the LGBT community in favor of a simplified message which says: "we are victims and you have to agree with us".

They will never let former homosexual activists like James Parker become involved with "understanding LGBT issues". A quote from his article, titled "Fifty years after the Stonewall riots, what the LGBTQI+ movement needs is less pride and more humility": "On a daily basis I walk with young people coming to terms with their same-sex attractions, with individuals struggling with the concept of being male or female, and with men and women ditching their other-sex spouse and children (and now even their same-sex spouse and surrogate or adoptive children) to pursue a “more fulfilling” relationship with one or more people somewhere over the rainbow.

Fifty years on from Stonewall, with every pillar of society now rainbow-friendly and frightened, I see 50 plus shades of gay grey which continue to imprison those who pursue an LGBTQI+ utopia. Five decades later, dysfunction has not only been accepted, but in places it has actually worsened.

The cocktail of gay hook-up apps along with accessibility to the drug Truvada taken by HIV-negative people to reduce their risk of HIV infection has birthed a more sexually compulsive world than existed prior to the AIDS epidemic of the 80s." I doubt very much that this will be part of what Gon Matsunaka wants to communicate to "deepen students' understanding of LGBT issues".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

The fact they can spit out kids is not deserving of any recognition or special status.

It's the fact that they 'can spit out kids' which gives them a responsibility towards each other and their kids. This responsibility begins already before they have children, because a child needs to be able to live in a safe, caring environment. The recognition is a reminder about how important their relationship is. This is particularly significant for men, who unlike women, don't carry a child for 9 months in their own body. That's why marriage as recognized by society is a form of protection for women and children.

I am going to quote Ryan Anderson, who has written a lot about this topic:

"While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships without redefining marriage and do not need government sanction or license to do so.

Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. There is no ban on same-sex marriage. Two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All people have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

I will take the gay couple that adopts and raises a child over an irresponsible pair of married misfits who created and abandoned that child

As would I. Any single person would be better than parents who abandon their child. Even dogs could do a better job. And when you say that it takes a village to raise a child, it points to the responsibility of society towards the wellbeing of children. But this has nothing to do with marriage.

It's simply because the sexual relationship between man and woman has a unique, essential purpose that this relationship deserves to have a unique form of recognition. If you want to have a recognition for another type of relationship, you can have that too, like a civil union or cohabitation contract. Why does it have to be the same exact form of recognition for different types of relationships?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

This is like saying the unmarried old woman who lives next door is not much use, ...

I didn't say that people have not much use when their relationship is not as important for society as another type of relationship. The topic is about so called marriage equality. It's not about how people can in general contribute to society.

Fine, you just keep your fingers in your ears and decide there is nothing to convince you without even hearing the argument first.

I replied to your comments. Did I miss something important?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It just isn't recognized by the petty government. If you want to marry someone of the same sex... or the opposite sex....or multiple people...or your pet...or your car, you just do it however you want to do it....in private...in a lavish ceremony, your choice. Stop looking to the government for permission to live your life.*

I agree. People can have private marriage ceremonies any way they want. But they can't force me to recognize all kinds of relationships (in the form of marriage) as equally important for society. And because the sexual relationship between man and woman is literally of vital importance for the survival of our bloodline, tribe, race, nation … this type of relationship deserves a unique form of recognition by society.

even if marriage is allowed that is a separate question from procreation anyway. Unmarried people procreate anyway. If its procreation you have a problem with, that is what you ban, not marriage.

Marriages between first degree blood relatives are illegal in every country of the world, even though consensual incest itself is legal in a number of places like Spain, Russia, Australia, Brazil etc. So it's obvious that there's a universal connection between marriage and procreation. If you want to disconnect procreation from marriage, then what would be the difference with a civil union or cohabitation contract?

twin brother and sister having 3 basically normal kids. Its quite possible and has happened.

Of course it may happen that siblings have healthy children, but increased health risks are still the reason that marriages between siblings are forbidden everywhere now.

Whether two consenting people can procreate or not, maybe or maybe not, is not the business of the government unless the government is our master and we are but slaves.

There's no futur without children and for the protection of women and children, men shouldn't be allowed to make women pregnant without assuming responsibility. That's the reason why society and its government have an interest in procreation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

So opposite sex couples who cannot produce offspring shouldn't get married? Should they get divorced? Is the only goal of marriage to produce offspring?

The only reason that some infertile couples can marry is because they are the same type of relationship as fertile couples who are allowed to marry. For example: If an opposite sex couple of two 80+ year old get married, it's the same type of relationship as a similar couple of the same age who got married at a younger age.

A relationship between man and woman also starts as only potentially fertile. You never know if they will really be able to procreate. And because procreation starts with a relationship and requires to have a stable commitment in order to create a safe, healthy environment for children to grow up, you can't tell people that they have to be sure already that they are fertile, in order to get married. Marriage comes first, and then their sexual intercourse may result in having children. So there's a bit of a gray zone between being potentially fertile, actually fertile and perhaps never fertile.

To force people to divorce because of infertility is cruel, because they have become intimate and shared their lives, so it would be painful to force them to separate. And at what point are you going to decide that someone is permanently unable to have children?

It's clear also that siblings aren't allowed to get married, fertile or not, and that's only because procreation is the reason marriage exists and incest leads to genetical degeneration. But once you allow same sex marriage, how are you going to argue that siblings aren't allowed to marry? Or are you going to discriminate against opposite sex couples by letting only same sex siblings get married? And there are already examples of such couples you can find on internet who would like to get married to enjoy certain benefits given to married couples.

And for those who support same sex marriage, I have also this question: in some places cousins are allowed to marry and in some places they are not allowed to marry. Would you consider this unjust discrimination? If so, why? And if not, then why would it be unjust discrimination to not allow same sex couples to marry?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

Plenty of comments here saying that same sex couples can't have kids. Thats totally incorrect. They can adopt, they can have sperm donors, they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way.

By your definition anyone can of course 'have' a child. Three sisters could raise several children together if they want and are allowed to. But this has nothing to do with marriage.  The point is that a man and a woman are responsible for their own children and that's why it's important that this type of relationship receives a form of recognition with specific rights and duties. To extend this recognition to other types of relationships obscures the meaning of the relationship between man and woman. It's not the fact that you are able to obtain and raise child which matters, but your biological connection to them.

And it's in the best interest for children to have both a mother and father anyway, because it offers better role models for them and it doesn't make them feel so different from others who have their own mother and father.

Transgender identities obscure the meaning of being a man and a woman, by focusing mostly on feelings and fantasy. So when there's a transgender woman with male genitals in relationship with a cisgender woman you might want to call this a same sex relationship. But when you start calling someone a woman who has naturally functional male reproductive organs, then you could call anyone a 'woman' simply by how they want to identify. It's only because of procreation that man and woman exist with different bodies. That's the only reason nature created this difference between both sexes. So it would be better to call this a same gender relationship between opposite sexes instead of a same sex relationship. Actually, current prevalent ideas about transgender make any discussion about sexual orientation pointless, because sexual orientation is not based on which gender you are attracted to, but the biological sex, the male or female anatomy.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution See in context

The main arguments put forth for legal recognition of same sex marriage are, equality, fairness, non discrimination etc. Can these same arguments be used by polygamists (any number or combination) or incestuous people to claim recognition for their unions?

I think you are absolutely correct about that. It's the elephant in the room. Supporters of same sex marriage have created a definition of marriage which makes it impossible to have a solid argument against polyamorous or incestuous marriages.

Why should we give the same form of recognition to different types of relationship? That should only be the case if the difference between those relationships is not important. But on a sexual level, there's a very clear difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality as the latter has also importance for society. A man and a woman should be held responsible for the children they have and without children there's no futur. And the fact that infertile opposite sex couples are allowed to get married is only because it's the same type of relationship. But infertile incestuous couples still aren't allowed to get married, exactly because fertile incestuous couples can't get married.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: Private women's university in Miyagi to accept transgender students See in context

Identifying as someone or something doesn't make it true. If you want to respect women, you shouldn't tell them that someone who only identifies as a woman, is a real woman. I would never want to send my children to a school which accepts current thinking about transgenders, as if all that matters is what you feel and what you want.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan's top bar association urges authorization of same-sex marriage See in context

"All individuals are granted the freedom to decide whether they marry as well as who and when they wed". This is a misleading statement when it claims to refer to legal recognition of marriage. People can have a private marriage ceremony in any way they want (siblings, multiple partners, same sex, with an animal or a tree …) but that doesn't mean that the law has to recognize such 'relationships' as marriages. There's no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality because our existence as male - female defines us as a heterosexual species. To think that recognizing heterosexual relationships as legal marriages could automatically create a right to legally marry someone of the same sex, completely obscures the reason why heterosexuality deserves such formal recognition.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Recent Comments


Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.