Rolf Anderson comments

Some possible ways Disney’s Sequel III, a.k.a. Episode IX, can fail...

If 50% or more of the film is Abrams/Johnson characters...FAIL.

If Luke does not return alive...FAIL.

If Jay Skywalker rather than Luke Skywalker appears...FAIL.

If books/comics are needed again to explain parts of the plot...FAIL.

If no Han/Leia funeral...FAIL.

If Gary or Mary Sue(s) appear...FAIL.

If Chewbacca and/or Leia are not clearly the owner(s) of the Falcon...FAIL.

If there is Reysplaining to Luke or Chewbacca again...FAIL.

If there are subplots that go nowhere...FAIL.

If the film does not complete the Skywalker Saga...EPIC FAIL.

Abortion was already the number one cause of death. Approximately 42,000,000 human beings worldwide lose their lives each year. All New Zealand has done is to help increase this number.

Where did we all come from?'" Nye said.

We know where, which is why Bill Nye lost his title as “the Science Guy.”

Burning Bush, thank you. And even more, thank you for speaking up and out for marriage, intact families, children and society.

This argument is done for anyone that cares about reality and facts.

Humans are made male and female.

Human bodies are oriented toward reproductive sex. Anything else related to sex is simply personal preference.

As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriage relationships produce the next generation.

Same-sex marriage does not produce children.

Children in a same-sex home are denied a mother or a father’s love.

The rights and restrictions of state-sanctioned matrimony are already shared by all Japanese citizens equally.

Same-sex couples/throuples are already free to make lifelong committed relationships.

When the state arbitrarily creates artificial rights, citizens’ rights are infringed upon, such as freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

I hope Japan moves towards public policies that create a healthier marriage culture rather than promote motherless or fatherless homes.

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations?

How many members are there?

Did all the members vote on that proffered statement?

What was the tally of the vote?

Why did any members vote no, if any?

And why does this site only post puff pieces on this issue?

At least Mr. Tanaka was honest about what he wants to happen. Have the Japanese government arbitrarily overturn marriage for a different institution in an act of social engineering and label this new artificial construct with the same name, which means any Japanese citizen who disagrees will be strong-armed by the government if he or she conscientiously objects.

Back in the days when scripts were still good and you felt like you were watching physical people and objects interact rather than the feeling now that we are just watching high budget computer games.

Star Wars broke a lot of molds, and though Disney and Lucasfilm are breaking the franchise into something non-Star Wars, we can still look to and enjoy the Trilogy.

The headline should have read “Reverence for marriage threatens same-sex marriage in Japan” since Japan still has a somewhat healthy marriage culture...unlike the States where no-fault divorce opened the door for “same-sex marriage,” unions which have nothing to do with marriage nor equality.

Marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime...not two men or two women or two men and one woman.

And marriage is still an institution of equality since anyone with any sexual preference can marry whomever they love depending on that person’s age, familial relationship, sex, marital status, required documentation, required presence, and willingness to swear under oath.

The mayor of London needs to review what 20th century fascists were like, and then apologize to Mr. Trump.

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.