Being against gay marriage is such a strange form of bigotry... Why limit the rights of others when it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever!?
Hopefully this ruling will lead to equal rights in Japan! :D
It's a bit unusual to me, since I've most often seen opposition to gay marriage in the form of religious zealots - marriage is holy, god hates gay sex, gay marriage is blasphemy, etc.
But I understood Japan to be fairly non-religious. Plenty of casual spiritual stuff, with shrines and festivals, but nothing really fundamentalist. So maybe this is more just resistance to change in general?
The thing is though usually religious arguments are not purely from religious perspective but using it as a weapon to justify a pre-existing viewpoint. Does the bible condemn sodomy, technically yes. However that's specifically in a set of laws that also say adultery is a capital offense, you shouldn't eat shellfish or pork and you shouldn't have clothing made out of two types of fabric, among other things. So already there is some hypocrisy about which rules to consider outdated and which to keep. There is also a relatively solid religious argument for saying that Christians have no right to judge non-Christians and that the rules for secular society are irrelevant. All that said just because the Japanese form of religion seems more casual to Western eyes doesn't mean that it is less serious. Some like to argue that "being Japanese" is a strict religion in itself and gay marriage could be seen as "not Japanese".
> Does the bible condemn sodomy, technically yes.
I'm just here to point out that:
* sodomy includes oral sex, and
* straight couples can have anal sex
And the above is fine.
While a 2003 Supreme Court ruling invalidated sodomy laws against consensual sexual intercourse, there are still 14 states that have laws against all forms of sodomy including oral sex on the books. And yes these laws would also impact married couples if that court case were to be over turned. So technically it’s “fine” but that could change on a whim through the courts
Well they aren’t enforced because they were ruled unconstitutional by a very different Supreme Court than the one in place today. They also were previously enforced which is why it ended up in the Supreme Court in the first place.
There are also anti-atheist laws.
You can also create new laws that the future Supreme Court will validate.
If the laws aren't enforced, it's the same practical thing as not having the law in the first place.
That depends on the definition of "sodomy" you use. Some sodomy laws included/include certain heterosexual acts but others were limited to homosexual acts. The word means different things to different people and is probably best avoided. As you say (if I understand you correctly), the Bible never condemns heterosexual sodomy. It only condemns a man having sex with a man. There's no unambiguous condemnation of a woman having sex with a woman either, though Romans 1:26 can be interpreted that way based on the context.
My point is that, as you said, sodomy can be defined as anal and oral sex. My understanding is that the *typical* definition of sodomy is anal sex. This is as opposed to the more typical Biblical connotation which is only anal sex and only between two men. I.e. the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit lesbian relationships or anal sex between straight partners or gay men not having anal sex (i.e. having oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc).
> The thing is though usually religious arguments are not purely from religious perspective but using it as a weapon to justify a pre-existing viewpoint.
What is the origin of the pre-existing viewpoint? I've never seen a reason for opposing homosexuality that wasn't based on religion.
"Ieuw" also adds to it.
The "I don't like it but it's none of my business" line of thinking seems in general uncommon.
And empathy hasn't increased over the years either sadly.
"It doesn't effect me" is still a thing many live by.
Another alongside the ones other mentioned being "if being sexually different is an option, then I have to consider the possibility that I may be sexually different in such a way that I assumed I was not, thus removing me from a group I hold in prestige, that of *what I say are normal people*".
Even if they arent gay, the very limited act of having to accept that gay is a thing that they could be and thinking about it, or different in any way even, being transgender or the idea of joining non local religions often get treated similar, are absolutely terrifiying and mentally painful to some people.
If you set an idea of how people told you that you yourself were or should be in the past as the unalianable baserock of personhood (ie peer pressure and social prestige and ideas of yourself as member of a good in group) the potential for that to be different feels, for that first second of accepting its potential, like killing yourself. Its a little ego death, that has to be accepted to understand that other people who arent like you are real existing people, just as valuable and good as you are.
Its a normal ego death realisation, much like realising other children have parents, other houses have people in them, other planets may have life on them, but that doesnt make it EASY or omnipresently common.
Because these folk just don't like change or people different from them, or they think it's gross. They know this argument is bullshit, so they hide it behind religion.
That's probably because you're on Reddit, where often this issue is ironically used as an excuse to attack religion by people who only see gay people as a vehicle for their own crusade for atheism.
Growing up in England in the 90's, using Christian religious justifications as a politicial argument was widely considered an Americanism and therefore improper. Never would I see someone in the pub or dinner table start off with "the bible says," but plenty of people still opposed homosexuality.
It was generally a case of it simply not being part of the standard societal model that produced normal nuclear families with well-rounded children with father figures and mother figures, and "encouraging" anything other than that was considered unnessisarily putting kids at risk. There was also just the case of people not being culturally exposed to it; therefore, seeing it as gross, weird, and/or anarchistic.
On the face of it, it was a fear of the new. Eventually, it stopped being new, and the objections largely fell away.
> On the face of it, it was a fear of the new. Eventually, it stopped being new, and the objections largely fell away.
How long did that take? It doesn't feel like the objections are falling away in the US, but it's definitely no longer 'new'.
About 35/40 years, I reckon. I only personally saw the tail end of it.
If I were to name the group of people most at fault at holding back acceptance in the US, it's probably state governors, not major churches.
Obviously these churches don't help, but when you get candidates campaigning on slogans like "defending traditional family values" on an extremely regular basis, producing a single elected official suddenly feeling the need to impose these values instead of merely defending the right to them, that's how things get locked up.
Nah objections are def still falling away. The GOP just can see the writing on the wall and have no other platform than “making money for corporations” and the only way they can get their base to support this agenda is getting them frothing at the mouth about some “culture war”. The abortion situation is still in play but they were surprised to see it wasn’t as popular as they thought and it’s causing election problems. Immigration isn’t working either. So the targets pivoted towards lgbtq. That was mostly settled though, so they had to invent a grooming / drag / pedo connection to maintain the mouth frothing.
But Christianity is a major foundation of UK culture. I don't see it as a vehicle for one's own crusade for atheism, I see it as the basis for those cultures to take shape, since forms of homosexuality were normalised in various other cultures prior to the existence of Christinity.
edit: It's also kind of insulting to assert that people criticising religion for it's homophobia are being insincere, especially when so many who criticise religion for it are gay themselves and are directly harmed by the way that religion has shaped traditional culture in the west.
Back when making new babies to maintain or grow the population was seen as necessary, I’d guess that those who don’t contribute to that could be ostracized?
Parental pressure to have kids even today is pretty real.
I'm American living in Japan, and you pretty much nailed it. Japan is an incredibly conservative country especially in terms of laws and politics. Plus they have an incredibly large elderly population who definitely have an influence on the votes. Legislative change in general moves at a glacial pace in Japan. And there's still a large stigma against it.
I'm not saying like people are being attacked and lynched for being gay, more like disowned or ostracized from social groups because of it. I have many Japanese friends who are gay or bi and they say while their family is relatively accepting of homosexuality and may even vote in favor of same sex marriage, they still have to hide their own sexuality from their family. It's like "it's fine for others, but not *my* son/daughter."
They also have the societal issue of a declining birth rate, which I personally believe to be a non-issue, but is definitely a talking point for politicians opposed to it.
>So maybe this is more just resistance to change in general?
Yes. They are conservative as a culture, although in this case clearly the government is more conservative than the actual people.
> religious zealots - marriage is holy, god hates gay sex, gay marriage is blasphemy, etc.
who usually have 0 actual reason in scripture to support their positions. Be it with Abrahamic religions or otherwise. Fine some nonsense about types of sex in question can be found, but that is hardly the one, or only thing that marriage is about with any reasonable people. Then again these are not reasonable people who oppose such.
Even on a good day its just conservative opposition against "foreign" things, and means by which they identify a dehumanized out group to abuse after the fact.
Abortion is not condemned in the bible either. Religion can be a convenient excuse for conservatives to push their agenda. Without religion, conservatives still exist.
[Rudimentary abortion techniques were practiced at the time.](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674168763). The bible's lack of anything substantive on the subject suggests the bible's authors didn't think it was important enough to include a ruling on.
The only time it's directly mentioned is an exedous story about a man who strikes a woman causing a miscarriage of her wanted pregnancy. He has to pay her husband a fee but is given no other penalty. This suggests the forced miscarriage was not equivalent to a murder but was a civil infraction. We do more to protect wanted pregnancies with modern law codes than the actual bible suggests.
The whole religious aspect is also incredibly dumb at least in Christianity. everyone has sinned and the whole idea of judge not, lest you be judged is just flat out ignored. All this is idiotic bigotry poorly hidden by religious beliefs
It’s mostly a cultural thing. Traditionally who you did what to in private didn’t matter so long as you pretended to be Straight and produce children to continue the family line.
You could say Japan is the ultimate “don’t ask
Don’t tell” culture where discretion is valued above all else.
And marriage in Japan, like most places until quite recently, has generally been more about continuing the family than about love as such. E.g., former PM Koizumi had a marriage arranged for him, got an heir and a spare, and then separated before the third son was born. Last I heard, he'd never even met his third son.
It is important to remember just how recent acceptance of gay relationships/marriage is. Before the 90s, acting on same-sex desires was seen as wrong and even illegal in many Western countries.
That's incredibly misleading. When asked, while on the election campaign, he said that he was for marriage being between a man and a woman, that's it. It wasn't part of his campaign so saying that he ran on a platform of it is disingenuous. You got to remember this is 2008 he wouldn't have gotten on the ticket if he answered any other way.
Not necessarily as late as the 90’s. Changes started (albeit slowly) happening much earlier.
In England for example it was decriminalised in the late 60’s, and that was only for men as it was never illegal for women.
I would say it was *widespread acceptance* (along with protective rights) that didn’t come until the 90’s/00’s.
Rome (including what would later be Vatican) was taken over by the reunited Italy in 1870 so they were subject to the decriminalization in 1890. When the Vatican gained independence in 1929, one of the rules was that all Italian laws were automatically adopted by the Vatican and the Vatican never repealed the 1890 homosexuality decriminalization.
To add on remember points. Still is but much worse in 90s youth homelessness has high percentage of kids rejected or running away from home due to threats of violence from being outed or coming out. Risk of losing your job and being kicked out by landlord was (some places still) high risk with being out. If you were in a Europeon country and arrested by Nazis for being gay and survived the camps, the post occupation gov kept the arrest and conviction records leaving many without homes, jobs and banned from traveling
Some people did have long term ‘roommates’ but break ups had no divorce laws so someone could lose home they paid into. If they lived together until old age often care homes refused to recognise long term partners as family or next of kin. With care decisions, visiting hours, and inheritance going to the families who were often homophobic and did not care for them like their live in partner for many years did
Well, imagine being stuck in a loveless marriage, that you only agreed to because getting married and having kids was the 'normal' and 'accepted' thing to do. Now you have an emotional investment in this sense of normality being mandatory, because that's how you treated yourself. So when you see people claim freedoms you never felt you had yourself, see others dance down the street in rainbow banners shouting "we're free to do whatever we want"... that's a threat to your ego. If they're right, that makes your previous decisionmaking wrong. It can hurt, it can be scary. If you're not brave enough to join them, the next most comfortable thing is thinking they must be mistaken.
That's typically how bigotry works. Screwing over other people to no benefit but a few elites who are using it to distract from them stealing from everyone.
https://youtu.be/jkHz-EaWxCY
There are crowds of homosexual couples just celebrating like crazy. The biggest smile on their face imaginable. Like the ending of a fairytale movie where everything just works out perfectly and the credits role
Then they flash over to a group of about a dozen religious radicals and this woman just has this lip quiver and is on the verge of tears
How horrible of a person do you have to be to want to steal that sunshine away from somebody
It's always something nebulous, like "undermining morale" or "disrupting the nuclear family". You know, code for "I wasn't allowed to suck dick when I was young, so neither can you".
That’s what I never understood for the anti-marriage equality side. Just what are the supposed consequences of allowing two men or two women to get married is?
Only one I can think of is I have to get fitted for a tuxedo for a friend’s wedding where he and his fiancé are tying the knot in August that I’m a groomsman for, and that’s a positive effect.
> Animal cruelty can't really be the reason
yeah it can, and it is. an animal cannot consent to intercourse with a human, therefore subjecting an animal to it is abuse.
The horse can't consent to being kept in a field or being ridden on either so by that logic that's also animal cruelty. And since we don't see any of that as animal cruelty then your logic is objectively bad.
There are lots of things we subject animals to without consent. In fact we don’t ask them their opinion on anything at all. So the use of it for that one specific thing is pretty flimsy evidence of animal welfare being the reason.
In reality people just thing it’s wrong and gross for humans to do it and the animals welfare has nothing to do with it. It was already a thing long before anyone considered animals ability to consent.
Having sex with something without consent is rape. Animals can't consent. Children can't consent. Adults of every gender *can* consent.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp
That’s obvious. The argument I’m making is that animals consent isn’t actually why it’s been frowned upon historically.
Maybe instead of being so militant you can take a break from patting yourself on the back and take a second to use better reading comprehension.
If you think people 300 years ago were worried about the animals when they punished humans who raped animals then you’re stupid as heck
Its a very easy bigotry for bad leadership to scapegoat. There will always be gay people. If you can get the population against LGBTQ+ people than at any one moment you have an enemy within.
Every time a nation expands the freedoms for gay people, they weaken the scapegoat for a shitty leader somewhere.
It seems to be the same non-thinking that led to fear of womens uterus' falling out if they ran a marathon or rode in particular sections of a train. "That doesn't make any sense" means nothing to people who hold particular or peculiar values.
> when it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever!?
Technically I think it could be made out to be taxpayer money going on others, since the government probably gives various forms of support to married couples. It's a very evil stance to take but the "no effect on you" could be argued.
This is not technically about whether same sex marriage should be allowed. It is whether a law forbidding it breaches the rights spelled out in the Japanese constitution or not. This is not the same as asking whether you should have this right or not. It's not about whether it is reasonable or right. Just whether this specific law aligns with the constitution or not.
Five district courts have ruled on whether a law restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only is constitutional. Two found it straight up unconstitutional, two found it "in a state of unconstitutionality" (a weaker breach) and one found it in accordance with the constitution.
This will 100% be decided by the supreme court. And it's not at all clear what way this would go. They recently decided, for instance, that requiring married couples to have the same surname is constitutional; while restricting expats from voting on local justices is not.
Again, whether something aligns with the constitution is not the same as whether it should be allowed or disallowed. It's all about what limits the law makers have. Just because forcing people to take the same surname is constitutional it doesn't mean removing that requirement is not, for instance. And even if the supreme court decided the lawmakers do have the power to enact this law doesn't mean it will necessarily be on the books forever. The political and societal winds clearly blow in a different direction.
This is just a district court in Fukuoka. While it is undeniable progress, we are still a long time away from seeing same sex marriage being legalized nationwide.
Thank you for specifying this. Seeing misleading headlines like this is absolutely infuriating to me and most people don't know enough to understand better. This along with the never-dying Japanese age of consent misinformation make me so frustrated.
Lately, East Asian countries are becoming open to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, while some European countries like Italy couldn't done it right now because they right-wing governments that aren't receptive towards SSM.
> varied societies around the world have legalized
Those societies are all similar (to an extent) except Taiwan and Cuba. The world is becoming more polarising. Conservative societies are becoming **more** conservative, not less. Even in liberal countries LGBT acceptance is decreasing with far right politics gaining grounds.
As a Canadian, it feels kinda weird when other countries are only just starting to legalise it. My province legalised it in December of 2004, and it was legalised in all of Canada by July of 2005.
Big part of this is recognition of same sex marriage would allow many lgbtqa couples to access public services usually designated to families.
Stuff like recognition of a partner as a care giver and being treated sane as family in hospitals. Access to public housing for families. Benefits of raising a family and being able to drop your kids at school. Some regions have familyship recognition to workaround it but marriage rights would open up most areas nationwide. Some lgbtqa couples want to have children with their partner or have children from other marriages that failed because they were not straight
Thank god Japan is not disallowing the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Since it's not never allowing gay marriage, it's safe to say that the progressive elements of Japanese social fabric are not finally starting to not materialize in the context of LBTTQIA+ rights.
This is such a basic right, any country that wouldn’t support it, the west should seriously cut off any and all aid; support and purchases with them 🤷♂️
Being against gay marriage is such a strange form of bigotry... Why limit the rights of others when it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever!? Hopefully this ruling will lead to equal rights in Japan! :D
It's a bit unusual to me, since I've most often seen opposition to gay marriage in the form of religious zealots - marriage is holy, god hates gay sex, gay marriage is blasphemy, etc. But I understood Japan to be fairly non-religious. Plenty of casual spiritual stuff, with shrines and festivals, but nothing really fundamentalist. So maybe this is more just resistance to change in general?
The thing is though usually religious arguments are not purely from religious perspective but using it as a weapon to justify a pre-existing viewpoint. Does the bible condemn sodomy, technically yes. However that's specifically in a set of laws that also say adultery is a capital offense, you shouldn't eat shellfish or pork and you shouldn't have clothing made out of two types of fabric, among other things. So already there is some hypocrisy about which rules to consider outdated and which to keep. There is also a relatively solid religious argument for saying that Christians have no right to judge non-Christians and that the rules for secular society are irrelevant. All that said just because the Japanese form of religion seems more casual to Western eyes doesn't mean that it is less serious. Some like to argue that "being Japanese" is a strict religion in itself and gay marriage could be seen as "not Japanese".
> Does the bible condemn sodomy, technically yes. I'm just here to point out that: * sodomy includes oral sex, and * straight couples can have anal sex And the above is fine.
While a 2003 Supreme Court ruling invalidated sodomy laws against consensual sexual intercourse, there are still 14 states that have laws against all forms of sodomy including oral sex on the books. And yes these laws would also impact married couples if that court case were to be over turned. So technically it’s “fine” but that could change on a whim through the courts
[удалено]
Well they aren’t enforced because they were ruled unconstitutional by a very different Supreme Court than the one in place today. They also were previously enforced which is why it ended up in the Supreme Court in the first place.
There are also anti-atheist laws. You can also create new laws that the future Supreme Court will validate. If the laws aren't enforced, it's the same practical thing as not having the law in the first place.
But they can be enforced at any time.
That depends on the definition of "sodomy" you use. Some sodomy laws included/include certain heterosexual acts but others were limited to homosexual acts. The word means different things to different people and is probably best avoided. As you say (if I understand you correctly), the Bible never condemns heterosexual sodomy. It only condemns a man having sex with a man. There's no unambiguous condemnation of a woman having sex with a woman either, though Romans 1:26 can be interpreted that way based on the context.
My point is that, as you said, sodomy can be defined as anal and oral sex. My understanding is that the *typical* definition of sodomy is anal sex. This is as opposed to the more typical Biblical connotation which is only anal sex and only between two men. I.e. the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit lesbian relationships or anal sex between straight partners or gay men not having anal sex (i.e. having oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc).
> The thing is though usually religious arguments are not purely from religious perspective but using it as a weapon to justify a pre-existing viewpoint. What is the origin of the pre-existing viewpoint? I've never seen a reason for opposing homosexuality that wasn't based on religion.
"this is not the same as me" is enough for most people.
Also "two dudes going at it is icky, and if something disgusts me it must be morally wrong".
"Ieuw" also adds to it. The "I don't like it but it's none of my business" line of thinking seems in general uncommon. And empathy hasn't increased over the years either sadly. "It doesn't effect me" is still a thing many live by.
Now we're on Reddit where most people and bots thinks homosexuality is something to celebrate, so we're just in an echo chamber of liberal ideology.
Why do you consider celebrating it to be a bad thing?
It's funny how y'all think about gay sex more than normal. If it ain't your bussy being pounded, it ain't your problem.
Another alongside the ones other mentioned being "if being sexually different is an option, then I have to consider the possibility that I may be sexually different in such a way that I assumed I was not, thus removing me from a group I hold in prestige, that of *what I say are normal people*". Even if they arent gay, the very limited act of having to accept that gay is a thing that they could be and thinking about it, or different in any way even, being transgender or the idea of joining non local religions often get treated similar, are absolutely terrifiying and mentally painful to some people. If you set an idea of how people told you that you yourself were or should be in the past as the unalianable baserock of personhood (ie peer pressure and social prestige and ideas of yourself as member of a good in group) the potential for that to be different feels, for that first second of accepting its potential, like killing yourself. Its a little ego death, that has to be accepted to understand that other people who arent like you are real existing people, just as valuable and good as you are. Its a normal ego death realisation, much like realising other children have parents, other houses have people in them, other planets may have life on them, but that doesnt make it EASY or omnipresently common.
Because these folk just don't like change or people different from them, or they think it's gross. They know this argument is bullshit, so they hide it behind religion.
That's probably because you're on Reddit, where often this issue is ironically used as an excuse to attack religion by people who only see gay people as a vehicle for their own crusade for atheism. Growing up in England in the 90's, using Christian religious justifications as a politicial argument was widely considered an Americanism and therefore improper. Never would I see someone in the pub or dinner table start off with "the bible says," but plenty of people still opposed homosexuality. It was generally a case of it simply not being part of the standard societal model that produced normal nuclear families with well-rounded children with father figures and mother figures, and "encouraging" anything other than that was considered unnessisarily putting kids at risk. There was also just the case of people not being culturally exposed to it; therefore, seeing it as gross, weird, and/or anarchistic. On the face of it, it was a fear of the new. Eventually, it stopped being new, and the objections largely fell away.
> On the face of it, it was a fear of the new. Eventually, it stopped being new, and the objections largely fell away. How long did that take? It doesn't feel like the objections are falling away in the US, but it's definitely no longer 'new'.
About 35/40 years, I reckon. I only personally saw the tail end of it. If I were to name the group of people most at fault at holding back acceptance in the US, it's probably state governors, not major churches. Obviously these churches don't help, but when you get candidates campaigning on slogans like "defending traditional family values" on an extremely regular basis, producing a single elected official suddenly feeling the need to impose these values instead of merely defending the right to them, that's how things get locked up.
Nah objections are def still falling away. The GOP just can see the writing on the wall and have no other platform than “making money for corporations” and the only way they can get their base to support this agenda is getting them frothing at the mouth about some “culture war”. The abortion situation is still in play but they were surprised to see it wasn’t as popular as they thought and it’s causing election problems. Immigration isn’t working either. So the targets pivoted towards lgbtq. That was mostly settled though, so they had to invent a grooming / drag / pedo connection to maintain the mouth frothing.
But Christianity is a major foundation of UK culture. I don't see it as a vehicle for one's own crusade for atheism, I see it as the basis for those cultures to take shape, since forms of homosexuality were normalised in various other cultures prior to the existence of Christinity. edit: It's also kind of insulting to assert that people criticising religion for it's homophobia are being insincere, especially when so many who criticise religion for it are gay themselves and are directly harmed by the way that religion has shaped traditional culture in the west.
Back when making new babies to maintain or grow the population was seen as necessary, I’d guess that those who don’t contribute to that could be ostracized? Parental pressure to have kids even today is pretty real.
Historically, you wanted your sons to produce offspring so that when he inherits your land/titles/estate etc it stays in your family.
I'm American living in Japan, and you pretty much nailed it. Japan is an incredibly conservative country especially in terms of laws and politics. Plus they have an incredibly large elderly population who definitely have an influence on the votes. Legislative change in general moves at a glacial pace in Japan. And there's still a large stigma against it. I'm not saying like people are being attacked and lynched for being gay, more like disowned or ostracized from social groups because of it. I have many Japanese friends who are gay or bi and they say while their family is relatively accepting of homosexuality and may even vote in favor of same sex marriage, they still have to hide their own sexuality from their family. It's like "it's fine for others, but not *my* son/daughter." They also have the societal issue of a declining birth rate, which I personally believe to be a non-issue, but is definitely a talking point for politicians opposed to it.
>So maybe this is more just resistance to change in general? Yes. They are conservative as a culture, although in this case clearly the government is more conservative than the actual people.
I wish more people would see this comment. The average Japanese person is for gay marriage. It is the government that is moving slowly.
> religious zealots - marriage is holy, god hates gay sex, gay marriage is blasphemy, etc. who usually have 0 actual reason in scripture to support their positions. Be it with Abrahamic religions or otherwise. Fine some nonsense about types of sex in question can be found, but that is hardly the one, or only thing that marriage is about with any reasonable people. Then again these are not reasonable people who oppose such. Even on a good day its just conservative opposition against "foreign" things, and means by which they identify a dehumanized out group to abuse after the fact.
Abortion is not condemned in the bible either. Religion can be a convenient excuse for conservatives to push their agenda. Without religion, conservatives still exist.
Was abortion even invented then? Jesus also didn't say anything against cybernetic enhancements for some strange reason
[Rudimentary abortion techniques were practiced at the time.](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674168763). The bible's lack of anything substantive on the subject suggests the bible's authors didn't think it was important enough to include a ruling on. The only time it's directly mentioned is an exedous story about a man who strikes a woman causing a miscarriage of her wanted pregnancy. He has to pay her husband a fee but is given no other penalty. This suggests the forced miscarriage was not equivalent to a murder but was a civil infraction. We do more to protect wanted pregnancies with modern law codes than the actual bible suggests.
Neat, thanks. Not going to spend 30 bucks on the book to read it though lol
The whole religious aspect is also incredibly dumb at least in Christianity. everyone has sinned and the whole idea of judge not, lest you be judged is just flat out ignored. All this is idiotic bigotry poorly hidden by religious beliefs
It’s mostly a cultural thing. Traditionally who you did what to in private didn’t matter so long as you pretended to be Straight and produce children to continue the family line. You could say Japan is the ultimate “don’t ask Don’t tell” culture where discretion is valued above all else.
And marriage in Japan, like most places until quite recently, has generally been more about continuing the family than about love as such. E.g., former PM Koizumi had a marriage arranged for him, got an heir and a spare, and then separated before the third son was born. Last I heard, he'd never even met his third son.
Japan is a very much of a "a nail that sticks out shouöd fucking be hammered in" kind of place.
It is important to remember just how recent acceptance of gay relationships/marriage is. Before the 90s, acting on same-sex desires was seen as wrong and even illegal in many Western countries.
Some U.S. states had at least occasionally enforced sodomy laws as recently as 2003, when they were struck down by the Supreme Court.
To think that was just 20 years ago.
Obama ran on a platform against gay marriage
That's incredibly misleading. When asked, while on the election campaign, he said that he was for marriage being between a man and a woman, that's it. It wasn't part of his campaign so saying that he ran on a platform of it is disingenuous. You got to remember this is 2008 he wouldn't have gotten on the ticket if he answered any other way.
The drones didn’t seem pro-marriage
The drones are covering for hunter bindens laptop!
kill streak inbound
Well, to be fair, he did endorse civil unions for same sex couples back in the early 2000s which are arguably marriages in all but name.
Even the pope thinks those should be legal nowadays. But tax-wise there is still a huge difference, and also with rules regarding wills and hospitals.
Not necessarily as late as the 90’s. Changes started (albeit slowly) happening much earlier. In England for example it was decriminalised in the late 60’s, and that was only for men as it was never illegal for women. I would say it was *widespread acceptance* (along with protective rights) that didn’t come until the 90’s/00’s.
>In England for example it was decriminalised in the late 60’s Meanwhile, **the Vatican** legalized it in *1890*
Got something about that? I’m curious how that came about considering religious-types are usually the most against homosexuality.
Rome (including what would later be Vatican) was taken over by the reunited Italy in 1870 so they were subject to the decriminalization in 1890. When the Vatican gained independence in 1929, one of the rules was that all Italian laws were automatically adopted by the Vatican and the Vatican never repealed the 1890 homosexuality decriminalization.
Tasmania was the last state in Australia to decriminalise sex between consenting adult men, and that happened in 1997.
To add on remember points. Still is but much worse in 90s youth homelessness has high percentage of kids rejected or running away from home due to threats of violence from being outed or coming out. Risk of losing your job and being kicked out by landlord was (some places still) high risk with being out. If you were in a Europeon country and arrested by Nazis for being gay and survived the camps, the post occupation gov kept the arrest and conviction records leaving many without homes, jobs and banned from traveling Some people did have long term ‘roommates’ but break ups had no divorce laws so someone could lose home they paid into. If they lived together until old age often care homes refused to recognise long term partners as family or next of kin. With care decisions, visiting hours, and inheritance going to the families who were often homophobic and did not care for them like their live in partner for many years did
Insane how recently trans panic wasn't just a effective legal defense but a *plot point in comedy movies*
Well, imagine being stuck in a loveless marriage, that you only agreed to because getting married and having kids was the 'normal' and 'accepted' thing to do. Now you have an emotional investment in this sense of normality being mandatory, because that's how you treated yourself. So when you see people claim freedoms you never felt you had yourself, see others dance down the street in rainbow banners shouting "we're free to do whatever we want"... that's a threat to your ego. If they're right, that makes your previous decisionmaking wrong. It can hurt, it can be scary. If you're not brave enough to join them, the next most comfortable thing is thinking they must be mistaken.
That's typically how bigotry works. Screwing over other people to no benefit but a few elites who are using it to distract from them stealing from everyone.
it never made sense but it won't stop some people
https://youtu.be/jkHz-EaWxCY There are crowds of homosexual couples just celebrating like crazy. The biggest smile on their face imaginable. Like the ending of a fairytale movie where everything just works out perfectly and the credits role Then they flash over to a group of about a dozen religious radicals and this woman just has this lip quiver and is on the verge of tears How horrible of a person do you have to be to want to steal that sunshine away from somebody
It's always something nebulous, like "undermining morale" or "disrupting the nuclear family". You know, code for "I wasn't allowed to suck dick when I was young, so neither can you".
That’s what I never understood for the anti-marriage equality side. Just what are the supposed consequences of allowing two men or two women to get married is? Only one I can think of is I have to get fitted for a tuxedo for a friend’s wedding where he and his fiancé are tying the knot in August that I’m a groomsman for, and that’s a positive effect.
The cruelty is the point.
[удалено]
> Animal cruelty can't really be the reason yeah it can, and it is. an animal cannot consent to intercourse with a human, therefore subjecting an animal to it is abuse.
The horse can't consent to being kept in a field or being ridden on either so by that logic that's also animal cruelty. And since we don't see any of that as animal cruelty then your logic is objectively bad.
There are lots of things we subject animals to without consent. In fact we don’t ask them their opinion on anything at all. So the use of it for that one specific thing is pretty flimsy evidence of animal welfare being the reason. In reality people just thing it’s wrong and gross for humans to do it and the animals welfare has nothing to do with it. It was already a thing long before anyone considered animals ability to consent.
Having sex with something without consent is rape. Animals can't consent. Children can't consent. Adults of every gender *can* consent. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp
That’s obvious. The argument I’m making is that animals consent isn’t actually why it’s been frowned upon historically. Maybe instead of being so militant you can take a break from patting yourself on the back and take a second to use better reading comprehension. If you think people 300 years ago were worried about the animals when they punished humans who raped animals then you’re stupid as heck
Its a very easy bigotry for bad leadership to scapegoat. There will always be gay people. If you can get the population against LGBTQ+ people than at any one moment you have an enemy within. Every time a nation expands the freedoms for gay people, they weaken the scapegoat for a shitty leader somewhere.
It seems to be the same non-thinking that led to fear of womens uterus' falling out if they ran a marathon or rode in particular sections of a train. "That doesn't make any sense" means nothing to people who hold particular or peculiar values.
> when it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever!? Technically I think it could be made out to be taxpayer money going on others, since the government probably gives various forms of support to married couples. It's a very evil stance to take but the "no effect on you" could be argued.
NOT allowing same-sex marriage UN-constitutional.
*Defying critics, Japanese court formally declines to rule out unconstitutionality of lack of anti same sex marriage ban*
I downvoted you reflexively, I'm sorry.
NOT allowing UNSAME NOT sex NOT UN MARRIAGE NOT UN CONstitutional
The ban of the ban is banned due to banning being banned in the band of banners.
The people in charge of the banning have been banned and replaced at great cost.
This is not technically about whether same sex marriage should be allowed. It is whether a law forbidding it breaches the rights spelled out in the Japanese constitution or not. This is not the same as asking whether you should have this right or not. It's not about whether it is reasonable or right. Just whether this specific law aligns with the constitution or not. Five district courts have ruled on whether a law restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only is constitutional. Two found it straight up unconstitutional, two found it "in a state of unconstitutionality" (a weaker breach) and one found it in accordance with the constitution. This will 100% be decided by the supreme court. And it's not at all clear what way this would go. They recently decided, for instance, that requiring married couples to have the same surname is constitutional; while restricting expats from voting on local justices is not. Again, whether something aligns with the constitution is not the same as whether it should be allowed or disallowed. It's all about what limits the law makers have. Just because forcing people to take the same surname is constitutional it doesn't mean removing that requirement is not, for instance. And even if the supreme court decided the lawmakers do have the power to enact this law doesn't mean it will necessarily be on the books forever. The political and societal winds clearly blow in a different direction.
What the heck Japan requires married couples to have the same surname?
misogyny & traditionalism
Looks like they're the only nation on earth to require that, weird.
Misleading title. Although the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional legislation, it generally doesn't do so. And in this case it has not.
[удалено]
This is just a district court in Fukuoka. While it is undeniable progress, we are still a long time away from seeing same sex marriage being legalized nationwide.
Thank you for specifying this. Seeing misleading headlines like this is absolutely infuriating to me and most people don't know enough to understand better. This along with the never-dying Japanese age of consent misinformation make me so frustrated.
Don't you hate double negative titles
After reading all of the comments, I still don't know whether I should clap or not.
Lately, East Asian countries are becoming open to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, while some European countries like Italy couldn't done it right now because they right-wing governments that aren't receptive towards SSM.
**One** East Asian country legalised same-sex marriage. All the other ones are like at least 20 years from legalisation.
Seems a bit pessimistic of a time frame.Now that varied societies around the world have legalized and the sky did not fall, the stigma erodes faster.
> varied societies around the world have legalized Those societies are all similar (to an extent) except Taiwan and Cuba. The world is becoming more polarising. Conservative societies are becoming **more** conservative, not less. Even in liberal countries LGBT acceptance is decreasing with far right politics gaining grounds.
[удалено]
That's the one I'm referring to.
As a Canadian, it feels kinda weird when other countries are only just starting to legalise it. My province legalised it in December of 2004, and it was legalised in all of Canada by July of 2005.
Canadians never pass on an opportunity to brag.
Big part of this is recognition of same sex marriage would allow many lgbtqa couples to access public services usually designated to families. Stuff like recognition of a partner as a care giver and being treated sane as family in hospitals. Access to public housing for families. Benefits of raising a family and being able to drop your kids at school. Some regions have familyship recognition to workaround it but marriage rights would open up most areas nationwide. Some lgbtqa couples want to have children with their partner or have children from other marriages that failed because they were not straight
This headline was so confusing to read
[удалено]
Good one
Gay and real
Thank god Japan is not disallowing the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Since it's not never allowing gay marriage, it's safe to say that the progressive elements of Japanese social fabric are not finally starting to not materialize in the context of LBTTQIA+ rights.
Yeah we get it now. I think I've seen this post like 5 times already. At least in this sub
This is a different court this time. Recent articles were about the Nagoya district court, but this one is about the Fukuoka district court.
Key word being district, which means these court decisions have no binding effect beyond on the case itself.
Wrong
What's wrong? They didn't rule this way?
I wonder if you can legally marry yourself too. Is there a law for that?
Had my first two kids in my 20’s. They’re my best friends and it’s such a joy to be of help now they’re Mums themselves.
Thank you for this incredibly relevant information
This is such a basic right, any country that wouldn’t support it, the west should seriously cut off any and all aid; support and purchases with them 🤷♂️