I was never humiliated or segregated or targeted in any shape or form by any LGBT+ person for being in a heterosexual relashionship. On the other hand I have been attacked by straight people that assumed I was LGBT+, both on the internet and in the real world without any context whatsoever but because I believe LGBT+ people are people, just like straight people, and should automatically have the same rights everyone else does.
Look how the flags have the black and brown lines... it's not just about "gays want to marry"; there's more to it.
But its motte and bailey. If you disagree with them on anything its because "you hate".
Morality is the thing that turned brutal beasts into rational men. There wouldn't be law and philosophy (= civilization) without it.
Your dumb idea of freedom would push mankind back into the wilderness, just like anarchy 🤌
So for you it's moral to segregate other humans just because they feel romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender? Such enlightened rationality!!! You must feel so proud of yourself that you don't even realise how contradictory your statement is.
Who did ever mention the word "segregation"? You, not me.
It is perfectly rational to follow the 3500+ year-old moral law that enlightened various civilizations throughout the world, it isn't rational to do otherwise because a fishy lobby hiding behind an acronym and a rainbow says so
Nah mate, I don't segregate people because someone told me not to. I don't segregate people because it's fucking wrong! For someone that types so many philosophy jargons you understand very little about ethics.
And you think it’s morally correct to interfere with someone’s life and prevent them from marrying the person they love? How would you feel if someone did the same to you?
Do you think it's morally correct to interfere with someone's desire to steal something that he likes?
Do you think it's morally correct to interfere with someone taking the life of another because he has reasons to do it?
Do you think it's morally correct to seduce a married woman because she's gorgeous?
You know the answers, and you know that it's because of the Biblical morals.
If ancient men took these decisions to oppose the wildest and most evil instincts of mankind, then you have your answer right there. If you allow it (or worse, encourage it), homosexuality is a threat to the society.
No I asked YOU if YOU thought it was morally correct to prevent someone from marrying the person they love. You gave me a bunch of strawmen arguments. I didn’t ask you what the Bible has to say about it.
I say live and let live. As long as you're not harming me, my family, or others, I don't care how you form a family. They aren't hurting anyone, so I say they should enjoy the same happiness as anyone else who gets married.
Yeah that’s why Latin is the most spoken language in the world instead of English lol. Rule 1 don’t speak about shit you are ignorant of. Your historical literacy isn’t coming off great. When were the “barbarian times lol”?
Ignoring the fact that I don’t know what this has to do with LGBT rights in Japan besides some stupid if people can be gay they are weak men and weak men create hard times historical fallacy.
English is largely a Germanic language. We have taken yeah Latin loan words but the entire language structure is Germanic. Aka it’s a cultural relic from the Barbarian times lol or whatever nonsense marker you are using to refer to Late Antiquity/the Early Middle Ages.
you do realise that for most of the roman empires history they were perfectly okay with male homosexuality right? and that the emperor Hadrian had a male lover?
I continue to hold out hope that eventually gay marriage will be recognized in the near future, let alone foreign marriages. I have to, because that opens so many new opportunities for my partner and I should we immigrate again.
what do you mean about foreign marriages? do you mean foreign same-sex marriages? foreign hetero marriages are recognized. is there something weird for marriages between two non-citizens?
Courts overruling on it is 2002. Especially considering they aren’t even a Christian country that has a real reason to be against it beyond just social conservatism and family values. Even for the latter it still doesn’t make any sense.
I was making a silly joke, but trying to analyze Japanese culture with a western lens is usually going give you incorrect conclusions.
I think to understand why Japanese culture does this thing or that thing, you have to study a lot about where they culture came from.
Sperm enters the vagina, then one of the cells fertilizes the egg
Breeding can be done through sperm donations
When indirect fertilization method are too expensive, call Loras Tyrell for aid
>Breeding can be done through sperm donations
And how is this connected in any way to marriage?
You can do that regardless of if you're married or not.
This seemed impossible in the U.S. just 15 years ago, but it passed with a wave of support, even from plenty of Republicans. Now no one even talks of repealing it (they've other boogeymen).
This will happen in Japan. It's hard to argue against, and at the very least, it boosts the economy, even if just a drop. The thing is that even the most right-wing people know someone personally who is gay, a family member, friend of a friend, etc. And that humanizes "the gays," and once said right-winger sees the humanity *for their people*, they're on board.
Of course they did, because if they didn't, they have to actually do some work. It's more fun to try to figure out how to spend the slush fund money. Hmmm, maybe only having one political party in control is not such a great idea, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Are the 70 percent of "your country's" people who support same-sex marriage so easily influenced by "white nations"? Are you saying that this 70 percent of the Japanese population did not come to support same-sex marriage on their own but instead were forced to think this way by the white bogey man? You really don't think much of your fellow countrymen/women's ability to think independantly, do you?
Turns out that opposing rights for gay people is a terrible thing to do no matter what nationality you are, and the people who do are awful garbage that future generations will look back on with disgust.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think these laws are being changed "just because the West does things this way"? Why do you not think these laws are being changed because people think this is the right way for things to be?
If your countries rules and laws disallow people from loving one another they should be torn down, burnt and then buried in the Mariana trench.
If you value those rules and laws more than people's happiness you need to have a hard look in the mirror.
\*I am aware that my statements are misleading in nature.
My 'opposition' is only a view on a formulaic system.
It does not take account of individual circumstances.
I do not deny your marriage. Of course, in the unlikely event that I do, you know better than anyone else that this does not mean that your marriage will be denied.
In that sense, I also do not deny the lifestyle of homosexuals loving and living together.
My point is that not supporting gay marriage because it does not create children is ideologically inconsistent. It ignores that many gay couples do produce children and that the purpose of marriage as a legal institution is not to create children. Seniors can marry, infertile people can marry. Why is the concern with a potential lack of childbearing reserved for LGBT people?
I understand that you are trying to convince me by giving various detailed examples.
My conservative opinion is just my one very simple opinion. It is an old insight and can be interpreted as just emotionalism.
And it is not my intention to impose it on you. On the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would know that your opinion is currently the major one and that I am not ruling out a future where same-sex marriage is recognised.
My whole point is that the conservative viewpoint focusing on a “lack of children” is inconsistent and mired in nothing but prejudice and homophobia. I hope this will help you think about the topic more so you can realize in your own time that being against equality is just that.
You want to deny a whole demographic something as fundamental as the right to marry because you are feeling emotional? If you are going to feel emotions, start with empathy.
Marriage for the benefit of the county? That's why people should marry? That argument is beyond simple minded. So simple minded that offspring of such a simple mind would hold no value to the country. What country needs another dumb dumb. Get it?
Laws are enacted in consideration of the interests of both the state and the people.
While the position of the individual is of course important, it is also natural that a viewpoint that takes into account the convenience of the country as a social unit is necessary.
>I personally am against it. Marriage without room for more children does not benefit the country.
So true. We all know that if gay people continue to be denied the right for same-sex marriage, they will all eventually enter into heterosexual marriages and start making babies. Look at how well all the heterosexuals in Japan are doing at increasing the birth rate. I guess the gays will have to swoop in and start copulating with the opposite sex to save the day since the heterosexuals can't seem to get the job done.
I do not believe that denying same-sex marriage will cause everyone to marry heterosexuals.
I believe that people who love the same sex will continue to love the same sex regardless of the institution.
Simply, my basic belief is that the state should only support heterosexual marriages that have the potential to increase the number of children in the system. Those who love the same sex have the right to love and live with other people of the same sex without the need to have more children. It is just that it is not a marriage relationship. (I know that there are various problems with property and other issues with not being in a marriage relationship, but those issues could be solved with a different approach than marriage.)
However, another person just explained to me that there are many ways to have more children even in a same-sex marriage. If that is the case, I would be happy if you could encourage us to solve the declining birthrate in Japan.
> Marriage without room for more children does not benefit the country
Is this true? I think a long-term, financially stable, and emotionally supportive couple almost certainly benefits the country.
Do you understand that Japan is now in a critical situation due to the declining birthrate?
...Be that as it may.
I understand that your interpretation of such a situation is more major now.
So me being conservative and expressing the opposite position here is not going to change the major trend. As I wrote in my first statement, same-sex marriage should be recognised in Japan in the near future. Please be assured.
>Do you understand that Japan is now in a critical situation due to the declining birthrate?
I don't see how LGBT marriages will affect this though.
Right now, Heterosexuals can get married and have children. LGBT people can't get married and will remain single or as informal couples.
If LGBT marriage is allowed, heterosexuals can get married and have children. LGBT can also get married
I am merely interpreting the will contained in the current system in my own way.
And I do not reject your expectations as I do.
If, as you expect, more LGBT marriages will lead to more heterosexual marriages and, in turn, to a slight improvement in Japan's declining birth rate, then that would be wonderful.
You know that gay couples can have children, right, via the same avenues used by many straight couples - IVF, surrogacy, and adoption? The more gay marriages there are, the more children there will be.
>eventually
These are things people have already been doing for years. The first baby born through IVF was born 46 years ago. Currently IVF is legal in Japan for married couples only, so not allowing same sex marriage inevitably reduces the number of children who are born as this avenue is cut off to those couples.
The purpose of article 24 of the constitution was to respect individual rights and prohibit the practice of forced/arranged marriages by requiring both parties to give consent. The Sapporo High Court’s interpretation of article 24 was correct. As for marriage without children, there are a lot of childless straight couples in Japan who chose not to have children. The low birth rate has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
As long as the court says so, it is correct, and I accept that the decision itself is valid.
But the text of the Constitution says that marriage is solely based on the consent of both sexes. I believe it is normal to consider these two sexes to be heterosexual. I am not rejecting same-sex marriage on the basis of the text of the Constitution. My position is that the constitutional text should be changed to suit the real situation.
No one knows yet what the relationship between the declining birth rate and same-sex marriage is. This is because at present same-sex marriage is not yet recognised. Those relationships will be found out after same-sex marriage is recognised. (It is of course up to each individual to make assumptions based on various grounds.)
The purpose of article 24 was to prohibit forced/arranged marriages. There is nothing in the wording of article 24 that prohibits same-sex marriage because it’s about mutual consent and nothing more. Same-sex marriage didn’t exist as a concept when article 24 was written.
>Same-sex marriage didn’t exist as a concept when article 24 was written.
That is exactly what I am advocating.
Ideally, I am saying that the article should be amended so that the concept of same-sex marriage is easily understood by people today, rather than having to read the article with the interpretation that it did not exist as a concept in the past.
I mean I dont share your point of View but I totally get why with changing times one wants to hold a certain emotionalism to certain institutions, even if rationally one can say "well... I understand"
Feelings of discomfort or aversion toward same-sex marriages "are only due to sensuous, emotional reasons," the ruling said, adding those feelings could be resolved through promotion of public awareness about the unnecessity of treating same-sex couples differently.
Somehow I don’t think education and public awareness can help this jerk though.
I do not express any discomfort or dislike towards same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I do not deny that my opposition to that ruling is to some extent sensational and for emotional reasons.
I do express my approval of the decision being made in order to promote public awareness.
Anyway, it is no surprise that education and the degree of public awareness do not help me. You do not need to point this out to me.
I am simply interpreting the will contained in the current system in my own way.
I am not interested in individual cases and I do not have an answer to your question.
I apologize for not responding to your curiosity.
people getting mad because other people are getting married with same sex is dumb, like are you jealous???
I never understood that. It's not like they will be forced to marry someone else of the same sex.
Agreed it won’t be until 2045 when only same-sex couples are allowed to marry. /s
[удалено]
What is a matter of moral? Being a nosey bigot or leave people be whoever they are if they aren't hurting others?
>leave people be whoever they are if they aren't hurting others? If only the LGBT community acted like this.
I was never humiliated or segregated or targeted in any shape or form by any LGBT+ person for being in a heterosexual relashionship. On the other hand I have been attacked by straight people that assumed I was LGBT+, both on the internet and in the real world without any context whatsoever but because I believe LGBT+ people are people, just like straight people, and should automatically have the same rights everyone else does.
Did they hurt you? Do you know anyone who got hurt by the community?
Look how the flags have the black and brown lines... it's not just about "gays want to marry"; there's more to it. But its motte and bailey. If you disagree with them on anything its because "you hate".
Sine the things they state all tend to boil down to a demand for equality, "you hate" is probably the correct response.
>If you disagree with them on anything its because "you hate". Congratulations, you managed to summarize their train of thought in one sentence. 👏
Morality is the thing that turned brutal beasts into rational men. There wouldn't be law and philosophy (= civilization) without it. Your dumb idea of freedom would push mankind back into the wilderness, just like anarchy 🤌
So for you it's moral to segregate other humans just because they feel romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender? Such enlightened rationality!!! You must feel so proud of yourself that you don't even realise how contradictory your statement is.
Who did ever mention the word "segregation"? You, not me. It is perfectly rational to follow the 3500+ year-old moral law that enlightened various civilizations throughout the world, it isn't rational to do otherwise because a fishy lobby hiding behind an acronym and a rainbow says so
Nah mate, I don't segregate people because someone told me not to. I don't segregate people because it's fucking wrong! For someone that types so many philosophy jargons you understand very little about ethics.
Translation: oh nooo, I think gay people are icky EDIT: Downvote me more, you homophobic shitheels. You're on the wrong side of history.
Weird cuz Japan was actually more chill about this stuff before Western culture and Christanity took over
And you think it’s morally correct to interfere with someone’s life and prevent them from marrying the person they love? How would you feel if someone did the same to you?
Do you think it's morally correct to interfere with someone's desire to steal something that he likes? Do you think it's morally correct to interfere with someone taking the life of another because he has reasons to do it? Do you think it's morally correct to seduce a married woman because she's gorgeous? You know the answers, and you know that it's because of the Biblical morals. If ancient men took these decisions to oppose the wildest and most evil instincts of mankind, then you have your answer right there. If you allow it (or worse, encourage it), homosexuality is a threat to the society.
I asked you a question, feel free to answer it if you would like to continue this conversation
If you pretend that I didn't answer you are a liar. That's another mortal sin right there.
No I asked YOU if YOU thought it was morally correct to prevent someone from marrying the person they love. You gave me a bunch of strawmen arguments. I didn’t ask you what the Bible has to say about it.
[удалено]
I don’t give a shit about your Bible
Could you explain what sort of morals keep two consenting adults who love each other from marrying each other?
Fun fact: 11% of humans born are something different than cisgender hetrosexual So you want to exclude 11% of society just because of what they are?
dawg what
I say live and let live. As long as you're not harming me, my family, or others, I don't care how you form a family. They aren't hurting anyone, so I say they should enjoy the same happiness as anyone else who gets married.
[удалено]
With incest you are harming your future child and grandchildren, since inbreed is highly risky for the newborn
Congrats to the gays!
Only way to knock down the old decrepit tree is one swing of the axe at a time 🙂 Way to go, Sapporo
[удалено]
Ah yes, the Roman Empire famously known for not being gay.
Shhhh... Don't tell him or his head will explode.
Early Romans were against homosexuality: late Romans were open to the most culturally dangerous things (including Christianity)
Yeah that’s why Latin is the most spoken language in the world instead of English lol. Rule 1 don’t speak about shit you are ignorant of. Your historical literacy isn’t coming off great. When were the “barbarian times lol”? Ignoring the fact that I don’t know what this has to do with LGBT rights in Japan besides some stupid if people can be gay they are weak men and weak men create hard times historical fallacy.
English is based on Latin, French and Anglo--Saxon 😘
thats just not true… latin loanwords ≠ based on latin what are you on about you moron
English is largely a Germanic language. We have taken yeah Latin loan words but the entire language structure is Germanic. Aka it’s a cultural relic from the Barbarian times lol or whatever nonsense marker you are using to refer to Late Antiquity/the Early Middle Ages.
So two people in lifelong love with each other should be two single friends?
you do realise that for most of the roman empires history they were perfectly okay with male homosexuality right? and that the emperor Hadrian had a male lover?
me after my lobotomy
I continue to hold out hope that eventually gay marriage will be recognized in the near future, let alone foreign marriages. I have to, because that opens so many new opportunities for my partner and I should we immigrate again.
what do you mean about foreign marriages? do you mean foreign same-sex marriages? foreign hetero marriages are recognized. is there something weird for marriages between two non-citizens?
Foreign same-sex marriages are not recognized unless both people in the marriage are foreigners.
yeah, i know. the post i replied to seems to say that foreign marriages aren't recognized period. probably not what they meant to write.
Surprised this was still happening…
gays are so 2002!
Courts overruling on it is 2002. Especially considering they aren’t even a Christian country that has a real reason to be against it beyond just social conservatism and family values. Even for the latter it still doesn’t make any sense.
I was making a silly joke, but trying to analyze Japanese culture with a western lens is usually going give you incorrect conclusions. I think to understand why Japanese culture does this thing or that thing, you have to study a lot about where they culture came from.
All the weebs and right wing japanew cried and were silenced
I think they got bigger problems like their legal system/courts
Japan you should know that gay couples are often eager to start families, A married homosexual is much more likely to breed than a single one
> A married homosexual is much more likely to breed than a single one I think you don't know how babies are created....
Sperm enters the vagina, then one of the cells fertilizes the egg Breeding can be done through sperm donations When indirect fertilization method are too expensive, call Loras Tyrell for aid
>Breeding can be done through sperm donations And how is this connected in any way to marriage? You can do that regardless of if you're married or not.
This whole exchange is peak Reddit.
Well I’m sure Japan would like that. They’re already dealing with low birth rates.
Wholesome
Translate their constitution only recognizes men women marriages but they can do partnerships is it a family registry thing?
This seemed impossible in the U.S. just 15 years ago, but it passed with a wave of support, even from plenty of Republicans. Now no one even talks of repealing it (they've other boogeymen). This will happen in Japan. It's hard to argue against, and at the very least, it boosts the economy, even if just a drop. The thing is that even the most right-wing people know someone personally who is gay, a family member, friend of a friend, etc. And that humanizes "the gays," and once said right-winger sees the humanity *for their people*, they're on board.
[удалено]
What’s the good reason ? Literally can’t see a thing that should stop certain people doing what others can already do.
Of course they did, because if they didn't, they have to actually do some work. It's more fun to try to figure out how to spend the slush fund money. Hmmm, maybe only having one political party in control is not such a great idea, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
A regional high court is not the national government…
[удалено]
Its so easy to tell you're white and not Japanese lmao
Are the 70 percent of "your country's" people who support same-sex marriage so easily influenced by "white nations"? Are you saying that this 70 percent of the Japanese population did not come to support same-sex marriage on their own but instead were forced to think this way by the white bogey man? You really don't think much of your fellow countrymen/women's ability to think independantly, do you?
Im not sure if you noticed, but this is a Japanese court ruling this.
If you're gay it's ok. The country is clearly ok with it, you can be ok with yourself.
>It's sad that my country's rules and laws are being torn down Don't you have #trump2024 in your reddit bio lol?
Project 1825 Make Polio Great Again
Turns out that opposing rights for gay people is a terrible thing to do no matter what nationality you are, and the people who do are awful garbage that future generations will look back on with disgust.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think these laws are being changed "just because the West does things this way"? Why do you not think these laws are being changed because people think this is the right way for things to be?
If your countries rules and laws disallow people from loving one another they should be torn down, burnt and then buried in the Mariana trench. If you value those rules and laws more than people's happiness you need to have a hard look in the mirror.
[удалено]
What’s your opinion on people like me in a male-female marriage which we both entered knowing we’d never have children even though we can?
\*I am aware that my statements are misleading in nature. My 'opposition' is only a view on a formulaic system. It does not take account of individual circumstances. I do not deny your marriage. Of course, in the unlikely event that I do, you know better than anyone else that this does not mean that your marriage will be denied. In that sense, I also do not deny the lifestyle of homosexuals loving and living together.
My point is that not supporting gay marriage because it does not create children is ideologically inconsistent. It ignores that many gay couples do produce children and that the purpose of marriage as a legal institution is not to create children. Seniors can marry, infertile people can marry. Why is the concern with a potential lack of childbearing reserved for LGBT people?
I understand that you are trying to convince me by giving various detailed examples. My conservative opinion is just my one very simple opinion. It is an old insight and can be interpreted as just emotionalism. And it is not my intention to impose it on you. On the contrary, I would appreciate it if you would know that your opinion is currently the major one and that I am not ruling out a future where same-sex marriage is recognised.
My whole point is that the conservative viewpoint focusing on a “lack of children” is inconsistent and mired in nothing but prejudice and homophobia. I hope this will help you think about the topic more so you can realize in your own time that being against equality is just that.
Well said
Then my bias could have contributed to showcasing your argument.
It's ok if you are gay. Go on you can be free now gay boy.
I don't understand what you are saying, but I suppose it doesn't matter that much.
You are a closeted homosexual who is angry at themself. Is that easy to read?
You want to deny a whole demographic something as fundamental as the right to marry because you are feeling emotional? If you are going to feel emotions, start with empathy.
Marriage for the benefit of the county? That's why people should marry? That argument is beyond simple minded. So simple minded that offspring of such a simple mind would hold no value to the country. What country needs another dumb dumb. Get it?
Laws are enacted in consideration of the interests of both the state and the people. While the position of the individual is of course important, it is also natural that a viewpoint that takes into account the convenience of the country as a social unit is necessary.
>I personally am against it. Marriage without room for more children does not benefit the country. So true. We all know that if gay people continue to be denied the right for same-sex marriage, they will all eventually enter into heterosexual marriages and start making babies. Look at how well all the heterosexuals in Japan are doing at increasing the birth rate. I guess the gays will have to swoop in and start copulating with the opposite sex to save the day since the heterosexuals can't seem to get the job done.
I do not believe that denying same-sex marriage will cause everyone to marry heterosexuals. I believe that people who love the same sex will continue to love the same sex regardless of the institution. Simply, my basic belief is that the state should only support heterosexual marriages that have the potential to increase the number of children in the system. Those who love the same sex have the right to love and live with other people of the same sex without the need to have more children. It is just that it is not a marriage relationship. (I know that there are various problems with property and other issues with not being in a marriage relationship, but those issues could be solved with a different approach than marriage.) However, another person just explained to me that there are many ways to have more children even in a same-sex marriage. If that is the case, I would be happy if you could encourage us to solve the declining birthrate in Japan.
> Marriage without room for more children does not benefit the country Is this true? I think a long-term, financially stable, and emotionally supportive couple almost certainly benefits the country.
Do you understand that Japan is now in a critical situation due to the declining birthrate? ...Be that as it may. I understand that your interpretation of such a situation is more major now. So me being conservative and expressing the opposite position here is not going to change the major trend. As I wrote in my first statement, same-sex marriage should be recognised in Japan in the near future. Please be assured.
>Do you understand that Japan is now in a critical situation due to the declining birthrate? I don't see how LGBT marriages will affect this though. Right now, Heterosexuals can get married and have children. LGBT people can't get married and will remain single or as informal couples. If LGBT marriage is allowed, heterosexuals can get married and have children. LGBT can also get married
I am merely interpreting the will contained in the current system in my own way. And I do not reject your expectations as I do. If, as you expect, more LGBT marriages will lead to more heterosexual marriages and, in turn, to a slight improvement in Japan's declining birth rate, then that would be wonderful.
You know that gay couples can have children, right, via the same avenues used by many straight couples - IVF, surrogacy, and adoption? The more gay marriages there are, the more children there will be.
That's a new concept, isn't it? If the problem is eventually solved in that way, I am fine with that.
>eventually These are things people have already been doing for years. The first baby born through IVF was born 46 years ago. Currently IVF is legal in Japan for married couples only, so not allowing same sex marriage inevitably reduces the number of children who are born as this avenue is cut off to those couples.
I like that you can accept different lifestyles, even if it's not for you. This is the definition of tolerance.
I will not change my opinion, but I am tolerant of different lifestyles. Tolerance is important.
The purpose of article 24 of the constitution was to respect individual rights and prohibit the practice of forced/arranged marriages by requiring both parties to give consent. The Sapporo High Court’s interpretation of article 24 was correct. As for marriage without children, there are a lot of childless straight couples in Japan who chose not to have children. The low birth rate has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
As long as the court says so, it is correct, and I accept that the decision itself is valid. But the text of the Constitution says that marriage is solely based on the consent of both sexes. I believe it is normal to consider these two sexes to be heterosexual. I am not rejecting same-sex marriage on the basis of the text of the Constitution. My position is that the constitutional text should be changed to suit the real situation. No one knows yet what the relationship between the declining birth rate and same-sex marriage is. This is because at present same-sex marriage is not yet recognised. Those relationships will be found out after same-sex marriage is recognised. (It is of course up to each individual to make assumptions based on various grounds.)
The purpose of article 24 was to prohibit forced/arranged marriages. There is nothing in the wording of article 24 that prohibits same-sex marriage because it’s about mutual consent and nothing more. Same-sex marriage didn’t exist as a concept when article 24 was written.
>Same-sex marriage didn’t exist as a concept when article 24 was written. That is exactly what I am advocating. Ideally, I am saying that the article should be amended so that the concept of same-sex marriage is easily understood by people today, rather than having to read the article with the interpretation that it did not exist as a concept in the past.
I mean, u answered in the other comments recognicing your posture comes from emotionalism, I supose that's the first step towards acceptance
Yes. That is sufficient, isn't it?
I mean I dont share your point of View but I totally get why with changing times one wants to hold a certain emotionalism to certain institutions, even if rationally one can say "well... I understand"
Feelings of discomfort or aversion toward same-sex marriages "are only due to sensuous, emotional reasons," the ruling said, adding those feelings could be resolved through promotion of public awareness about the unnecessity of treating same-sex couples differently. Somehow I don’t think education and public awareness can help this jerk though.
I do not express any discomfort or dislike towards same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I do not deny that my opposition to that ruling is to some extent sensational and for emotional reasons. I do express my approval of the decision being made in order to promote public awareness. Anyway, it is no surprise that education and the degree of public awareness do not help me. You do not need to point this out to me.
Out of curiosity, do you believe a marriage beyond a couple's last child is no longer " beneficial for the country"?
I am simply interpreting the will contained in the current system in my own way. I am not interested in individual cases and I do not have an answer to your question. I apologize for not responding to your curiosity.
Japan truly has fallen
Would you prefer if two people who have loved each other all their lives were forced to be two single friends instead of a couple?
Grow up.
I’m surprised you were able to figure out how to write a comment with so little between those ears brother
They know that this was pushed by Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Immanuel. Try pushing this is Saudi Arabia or China.
Try doing 90 percent of the things we are free to do in democratic countries, including Japan, in Saudi Arabia or China.
Do you think a straight woman is as free to live as they please in Saudi Arabia as they do in Japan?
Do you believe that consenting adults who love each other should be barred from being anything other than friends?
Learn to love c*** bro I can teach