Rolf Anderson comments

At first, I thought this new article was about a gay death penalty when actually the crime is sodomy, a crime that can be committed by opposite-sex and same-couples.

The other death penalty crimes listed are adultery, rape, premeditated murder, and drug trafficking. How are these crimes connected to living the gay lifestyle? Why does this article focus on said lifestyle?

I agree that these crimes do not merit death and I am glad there has been some reversal, and even more needs to be done. Because we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life.

How does fostering gender confusion in young people ever a good thing?

Izzy Folau added a comment to the meme he posted on Instagram.

”Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

Is this a message of hate? Not warning people who are in danger would be unloving.

Rather than being chastised, Folau should be praised for speaking out about Objective Morality and the consequence for all of us when we fail to conform to objective moral laws.

The existence of God is the best explanation for the way things are. The kind of world we live in, and so on. Hopefully, this series focuses on Christianity since that worldview has the most explanatory power of all the alternative ways to explain the reality we find ourselves in.

Well, either God exists or does not. I wonder what evidence this show will produce to answer this issue one way or the other.

3. They make you rethink stereotypes and open your mind to different situations

I wonder how, since the stars of the show themselves are stereotyped.

Possibly not. But does it though, am asking as I haven't seen it?

Possibly not? Is it ever helpful to place people in small boxes and place labels on them? I cannot think of an instance but maybe someone else can. On a side note, the title of this program indicates its focus on stereotypes.

Sadly, there are people who are confused about which binary sex they are. And though they are confused, there is no need for the rest of us to be confused.

Does Japan need another show perpetuating stereotypes?

The King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Sovereign of us all needs a comic book superhero to toughen him up!?!

Is the publishing industry that desperate for material!?!

Straight people are allowed to marry those they love, but those who dare to love someone who shares the same genitalia are not allowed to marry those they love.

Are you purposely pretending to be obtuse? Well, I will give it one more try.

Let’s restate your post for clarity.

“Straight or gay people are allowed to marry those they love, but those, straight or gay, who dare to love someone who shares the same genitalia are not allowed to marry those they love.”

Now do you see that the rules are equally applied? Whatever a peron’s sexual preference is (straight, gay, etc.), they can marry under the same rules as everyone else. This is equally true for the polygamists, incestuous, and pedophiles who wish to marry.

Once last time...the rights and restrictions of matrimony are enjoyed by all citizens equally.

Disliking this objective truth does not invalidate this truth.

Under the rules, straight people are allowed to marry the person they love, but gay people are not. So no, they cannot marry those they love under the same rules. They are in fact unable to marry those they love.

I think you may not have read my full post so I will post it here again.

“They can marry those they love under the same rules as everyone else. 

They might be disappointed, just like people who love a close blood relative or a child or someone who is already married are disappointed, but they are being treated equally and fairly.”

Have you actually read the responses? Come on now! How many times does it have to be pointed out?

Yes, there have been responses to the question but no ANSWER to the question.

No one is suffering from any inquality since the rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are already shared by all citizens equally.

They are not allowed to marry those they love...

Yes, they can marry those they love under the same rules as everyone else.

They might be disappointed, just like people who love a close blood relative or a child or someone who is already married are disappointed, but they are being treated equally and fairly.

...if it was true, then pray tell why are they forced to go to court to have their marriages recognized?

They are going to court to demand that their non-marriages be recognized as marriages. If an immigration officer does not recognize my non-passport as a passport, he or she is not causing me to suffer nor engaging in unjustifiable discrimination.

Every LGBT person is suffering from inequality in Japan.

What inequality are they suffering from concerning marriage? Again, the fact is that anyone of any sexual preference can marry under the same restrictions as everyone else.

Yes, I've read it and replied to it.

Yes, you replied with a statement misconstruing my post.

Japan will be standing for equal marriage eventually.

It already does because Japan already has marriage equality.

*So, no marriage or kids for LGBT people, eh?*

Any person can marry, LGBT or not. One’s sexual preference is not a question on an application for a marriage license. The same is true for adoption.

No LGBT person is suffering from any inequality in Japan. They may feel dissatisfaction because one or more of their egocentric itches is not being met, but this does not change the fact they are subject to the same equal restrictions as everyone else. None of us has a right to demand that all of our egocentricities be fulfilled by society.

LGBT people can adopt, or have a surrogate. And not every couple, straight or otherwise, has to begin a family. People who get married late in life, or disabled couples, or those who just don't want kids.

Please read what I posted again.

“Marriage is on the right side of history because the two sexes come together and begins a two-person family, the building block of society.”

A married man and woman ARE a family whether they have children or not. Anything else is a broken family, and a loving and compassionate society never purposely creates broken families so let’s hope that Japan shows itself to be loving and compassionate by standing for marriage.

Why you think these people should be denied the same rights you have is yet to be explained.

No one is being denied any rights. The rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are already shared by all citizens equally.

The same argument was made about allowing marriage between different races. 

??? I am sorry but I do not understand your point.

Laws keeping different ethnicities from marrying were on the wrong side of history because they kept a man and woman apart. Marriage is on the right side of history because the two sexes come together and begins a two-person family, the building block of society.

Marriage is either something particular or it is not. Supporters of marriage hold to the former notion. Others to the latter, i.e. marriage is not anything in particular and is merely defined in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions.

But is the latter notion true?

Did governments simply create laws to protect that which already existed, marriage, or did governments create marriage through arbitrary laws?

We all know the answer.

Therefore, governments cannot ultimately redefine marriage because they did not create marriage. They can only damage this vital institution by interfering with it through attempts at redefinition.

I support marriage equality, which is why I do not support same-sex marriage since it has nothing to do with marriage ((one man (husband), one woman (wife), for one lifetime)) nor equality (the right of marriage is already shared by all citizens equally).

...in that scenario, the same-sex couples are not the ones receiving preferential treatment, hetrosexual couples are, as they are the only ones receiving this benefit. Why should they be the only ones?

Please read my post again. Same-sex pairings were included in the scenario, e.g. two spinners.

...should they not receive the same benefits as a couple who chooses to spend their lives together?

No. Due to them not being married.

There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same preferential treatment. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to tax cuts and insurance benefits. It’s meant to build families...a union of a man and a woman who may or may not have children.

If Chiba were going against national laws, it would be recognizing same-sex marriages.

The problem here is that the city is recognizing same-sex marriages. They are simply disingenuously not using the word “marriage.”

Same-sex couples do not have the same legal benefits as married couples. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—two sisters , a pair of spinsters, college roommates, et al.—share those benefits, either. Why should they? If same-sex couples face inequality in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should same-sex couples receive preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

Is this show not a bit homophobic? Pushing the notion that queer men know something about fashion and style because they are gay is stereotyping. Not only stereotyping but also perpetuating such identity assumptions on gays and straights.

Stating that 25 nations recognize same-sex marriage is the same as saying that 25 nations recognize square circles.

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.

So nations did not create marriage with arbitrary laws but simply created laws to protect that which already existed, marriage. Hence, countries cannot ultimately redefine marriage. They can only damage them by interfering with them.

We cannot take axe to the root of civilization, marriage and the family, without their being negative consequences.

Thank you, Japan, for still recognizing the objective truth of what marriage is.

This is wonderful news. Children are entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought them into being. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child.

Kathleen Kennedy has not taken credit for one of her achievements. Being behind the first Star Wars movie to lose money. In place of storytelling, Lucasfilm under her direction has become a platform for political/sexual agendas, and their box office take reflects this.

“...no student of a non-state school should be expelled on the basis of their sexuality,”

What is the word “sexuality “ meant here? Does it refer to students with same-sex attraction who do not act on such attraction? Does it refer to pupils who sometimes engage in same-sex acts but do not identify with the gay lifestyle? Or does it refer to those who do actively live and identify as gay?

Without clear definitions, there cannot be a clear dialogue.