The fight to formally legalize gay marriage in Japan begins as LGBT group files a human rights compl - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;48167675]Well I'm in the US and we do have people saying this kind of crap. [url]http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html[/url] (and yes, I'm including headlines in this.)[/QUOTE] What's wrong with that article? Gay couples can't accidentally have kids so it stands to reason that they will only have them if they really want them.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48161189]They might not do so right away as they do have a population problem. Japan needs Breeders not this.[/QUOTE] The existence of gay people is far from being a major cause of this problem. Really the biggest one is people just don't want to, they'd rather spend their time with themselves and their SO rather than raising children. And even if you didn't want to, back in the day where many people were farmers they were pretty much forced to make children to help around and to take care of them in their old age, because it's not like you had generous pensions and external support to look forward to. [QUOTE=EcksDee;48164420]Japan is way fucking weird [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzoUqUkbswc]In this show, punishments (among other things) included getting sat on by naked boys[/url][/QUOTE] I'm quite thankful I don't browse FP in public.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48167675]Well I'm in the US and we do have people saying this kind of crap. [url]http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html[/url] (and yes, I'm including headlines in this.)[/QUOTE] so are you actually going to address the content of any of these articles or are you just going to keep getting upset at sensationalist headlines

[QUOTE=Glaber;48167675]Well I'm in the US and we do have people saying this kind of crap. [url]http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html[/url] (and yes, I'm including headlines in this.)[/QUOTE] So you'd rather be concerned over a narrative that gay people are capable parents, rather than the narrative the republicans like you often dole out that gay people are unfit to parent and unfit for marriage rights? This is a pretty good example of logical dissonance. I believe the reason gay parents are being found to be better parents is because they are. They're generally speaking, people who have gone through more trials and tribulations over EVERY issue of their life than you have over ANY issue of your life. Gay people had it very hard just a short 5 years ago. They've fought harder for the right to be parents that it's likely they're going to give it their best now that they can. I know many families take it for granted how easy it is for them compared to LGBT families.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48167803]so are you actually going to address the content of any of these articles or are you just going to keep getting upset at sensationalist headlines[/QUOTE] ok, but I'll go back to the first article. According to the first article, Japan not having anyway for homosexuals to get married to anyone not of the opposite sex is some how a violation of human rights. I've done a little bit of digging on what is a human right here, and I've found no mention of Homosexuality. I've found Marriage though, and according to Article 16 of the Declaration of Human rights. [quote]Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.[/quote] [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/url] No where in there does it mention gender or sex and therefore, Gay marriage is not covered. Japan doesn't have to do anything.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48167988]ok, but I'll go back to the first article. According to the first article, Japan not having anyway for homosexuals to get married to anyone not of the opposite sex is some how a violation of human rights. I've done a little bit of digging on what is a human right here, and I've found no mention of Homosexuality. I've found Marriage though, and according to Article 16 of the Declaration of Human rights. [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/url] No where in there does it mention gender or sex and therefore, Gay marriage is not covered. Japan doesn't have to do anything.[/QUOTE] so are we just ignoring everything you posted before to go on this tangent about how you personally interpret the Declaration of Human Rights? cause I mean if we wanna do this shit I'd say "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family" is pretty clear

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48168019]so are we just ignoring everything you posted before to go on this tangent about how you personally interpret the Declaration of Human Rights? cause I mean if we wanna do this shit I'd say "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family" is pretty clear[/QUOTE] Yes it is, very clear. Yet, you don't see the word sex in that list, do you? Without it, it only covers Heterosexual marriage, witch was all that the term Marriage covered back in the 1940's when the declaration was written. Back then Homosexuality was considered Taboo and as such, they didn't even bother to think about it. The articles I brought up were only meant to be used as examples in regards to what I was posting, to the person I quoted. But if you want me to address them too. I could do that, and in fact, I actually have an article that counters the second one I posted. This one does so using results that come from a study that goes into greater detail than the other one. For example: [quote] Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.[/quote] [URL]http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14417/[/URL] The article goes into more detail than this, and I can bring out more quotes from it as needed.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48161189]They might not do so right away as they do have a population problem. Japan needs Breeders not this.[/QUOTE] You do realize that sperm/egg donation banks are a thing right?

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168273]Yes it is, very clear. Yet, you don't see the word sex in that list, do you? Without it, it only covers Heterosexual marriage, witch was all that the term Marriage covered back in the 1940's when the declaration was written. Back then Homosexuality was considered Taboo and as such, they didn't even bother to think about it.[/QUOTE] You are wrong. It says "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." It does not say "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family with a member of the opposite sex." Nothing about that implies that marriage must be between a man and a women. It states that a man or woman has the right to marry and found a family, and to have equal rights in all areas regarding marriage, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion. It does not need to specify homosexuality for it to apply to a homosexual couple. Homosexuals are still men and women, and when they are of full age, by the Declaration of Human Rights, they have the right to marry and found a family with any man or woman of full age of their choosing, without limitation due to race, nationality, or religion.

[QUOTE=Taggart;48168365]You are wrong. It says "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." It does not say "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family with a member of the opposite sex." Nothing about that implies that marriage must be between a man and a women. It states that a man or woman has the right to marry and found a family, and to have equal rights in all areas regarding marriage, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion. It does not need to specify homosexuality for it to apply to a homosexual couple. Homosexuals are still men and women, and when they are of full age, by the Declaration of Human Rights, they have the right to marry and found a family with any man or woman of full age of their choosing, without limitation due to race, nationality, or religion.[/QUOTE] Ah, but you are the one mistaken for you have placed sex in the wrong spot. for you to be right, it has to read as follows: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, [B]sex[/B], nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Look at where I placed it. Now tell me, wouldn't this wording be more inclusive of what you want? Without that one word, gay marriage is not covered as does not say that they can't be limited by sex. Also, 1948. Homosexualty was considered to be extremly taboo and as such, homosexual marriage was not even a thought when this was written.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168429]Ah, but you are the one mistaken for you have placed sex in the wrong spot. for you to be right, it has to read as follows: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, [B]sex[/B], nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Look at where I placed it. Now tell me, wouldn't this wording be more inclusive of what you want? Without that one word, gay marriage is not covered as does not say that they can't be limited by sex. Also, 1948. Homosexualty was considered to be extremly taboo and as such, homosexual marriage was not even a thought when this was written.[/QUOTE] it already says men and women why does it need to further clarify that you can't discriminate based on sex I just really don't see where you're going with this, it doesn't matter what you think the interpretation should be.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48168559]it already says men and women why does it need to further clarify that you can't discriminate based on sex I just really don't see where you're going with this, it doesn't matter what you think the interpretation should be.[/QUOTE] Why, because not only do words have meaning, but so do their absence. Why does Article 16 even bother listing what you can't be limited by in the right to marry? Marriage before 2015, was defined as being between a man and a woman, when this was written. People back then never thought Homosexuality would become accepted and as such never bothered to spell it out in article 16 because they knew that Marriage was between a man and woman. Prove me otherwise!

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168576]Why, because not only do words have meaning, but so do their absence. Why does Article 16 even bother listing what you can't be limited by in the right to marry?[/QUOTE] are you planning on going to the UN to debate this shit or something gay people deserve the right to marry the same as any other couple, the end like maybe you could argue that "all men were created equal in the eyes of their creator" doesn't apply to slaves but that doesn't mean it shouldn't

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168429]Ah, but you are the one mistaken for you have placed sex in the wrong spot. for you to be right, it has to read as follows: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, [B]sex[/B], nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Look at where I placed it. Now tell me, wouldn't this wording be more inclusive of what you want? Without that one word, gay marriage is not covered as does not say that they can't be limited by sex.[/QUOTE] You know, there's a reason that sex isn't listed within the limitations, and you've already said what it is. [QUOTE]Homosexualty was considered to be taboo and as such, homosexual marriage was not even a thought when this was written.[/QUOTE] It isn't 1948 anymore. Because it was not a thought, it has not been defined as against the Declaration. The definition of marriage is now, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." With the definition of marriage being changed to include homosexual marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual marriage is covered under the Declaration, and the Declaration does not need to be changed to recognize this. Eventually, the definition of marriage will change to simply be "the legally or formally recognized union of two spouses as partners in a relationship", completely wiping away the need to even explain such a simple concept to people. The Declaration's wording remains clear: Any man or woman of full age has the right to marry and found a family with any man or woman of full age, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion. Tell me where it says anything against homosexual marriage.

[QUOTE=Taggart;48168599]You know, there's a reason that sex isn't listed within the limitations, and you've already said what it is. It isn't 1948 anymore. Because it was not a thought, it has not been defined as against the Declaration. The definition of marriage is now, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." With the definition of marriage being changed to include homosexual marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual marriage is covered under the Declaration, and the Declaration does not need to be changed to recognize this. Eventually, the definition of marriage will change to simply be "the legally or formally recognized union of two spouses as partners in a relationship", completely wiping away the need to even explain such a simple concept to people. The Declaration's wording remains clear: Any man or woman of full age has the right to marry and found a family with any man or woman of full age, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion. Tell me where it says anything against homosexual marriage.[/QUOTE] Tell me where it says anything [B]for [/B]it. the way the article is written now, it allows you to be limited by sex regardless of definition of Marriage. Words and their presence or absence have meaning. Without revision, Article 16 allows people to get married regardless of what their race is, where they are from, or what their faith is, and makes no mention of the crucial part that would hold your argument together.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168627]Tell me where it says anything [B]for [/B]it. the way the article is written now, it allows you to be limited by sex regardless of definition of Marriage[/QUOTE] lets say we just accept that you're right glaber, what then? what does this have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168576]Why, because not only do words have meaning, but so do their absence. Why does Article 16 even bother listing what you can't be limited by in the right to marry? Marriage before 2015, was defined as being between a man and a woman, when this was written. People back then never thought Homosexuality would become accepted and as such never bothered to spell it out in article 16 because they knew that Marriage was between a man and woman. Prove me otherwise![/QUOTE] Prove what exactly? That a term has to change in a legal document for people to have equal rights and you're fighting this tooth and nail seemingly? Jumping from one half baked argument to the next all to say gay people don't have the right to marry because of your insecurities that gay parents may be perfectly acceptable?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48168635]lets say we just accept that you're right glaber, what then? what does this have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] If I am right, what this means is that Homosexual Marriage is not a human right, and that Japan doesn't have to reconice gay marriage if they don't want to.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168627]Tell me where it says anything [B]for [/B]it.[/QUOTE] The very definition of marriage. [QUOTE=Glaber;48168627]the way the article is written now, it allows you to be limited by sex regardless of definition of Marriage.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. The definition of marriage is KEY to the Declaration. If you remove the definition of marriage, all you are left with is "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to [I]marry[/I] and to found a family.", with "marry" meaning literally nothing. Without the definition of marriage, "They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution" does not mean anything. If you haven't defined what marriage is, how can someone have equal rights to it, during it, and at it's dissolution? If you remove the definition of marriage from the equation, you make Article 16 meaningless.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168672]If I am right, what this means is that Homosexual Marriage is not a human right, and that Japan doesn't have to reconice gay marriage if they don't want to.[/QUOTE] but they absolutely should, so who cares

[QUOTE=Taggart;48168702]The very definition of marriage. No it doesn't. The definition of marriage is KEY to the Declaration. If you remove the definition of marriage, all you are left with is "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to [I]marry[/I] and to found a family.", with "marry" meaning literally nothing. Without the definition of marriage, "They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution" does not mean anything. If you haven't defined what marriage is, how can someone have equal rights to it, during it, and at it's dissolution? If you remove the definition of marriage from the equation, you make Article 16 meaningless.[/QUOTE] But even with the modern definition article 16 doesn't protect gay marriage as that requires you to not be limited based on sex and because that's not spelled out, you can be limited based on either your sex, or your spouse's. Tell me, how can article 16 protect gay marriage if it doesn't spell it out that it can like it does for race, region and faith?

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168761]But even with the modern definition article 16 doesn't protect gay marriage as that requires you to not be limited based on sex and because that's not spelled out, you can be limited based on either your sex, or your spouse's. Tell me, how can article 16 protect gay marriage if it doesn't spell it out that it can like it does for race, region and faith?[/QUOTE] you are literally arguing with an article that you yourself posted

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48168781]you are literally arguing with an article that you yourself posted[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing about that one any more. My argument has refocused to the Japan article as bringing up article 16 of the declaration of human rights is relevant to it. if you're refering to argueing against that, maybe you need to reread a few posts as I have argued that the presence or absence of words have meaning, and that even includes what article 16 says you can't be limited by.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48161189]They might not do so right away as they do have a population problem. Japan needs Breeders not this.[/QUOTE] So keeping gay marriage illegal will force gay people to go straight?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48168812]So keeping gay marriage illegal will force gay people to go straight?[/QUOTE] proably not, but then again there's nothing now stopping them from going straight of their own free will.

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168761]But even with the modern definition article 16 doesn't protect gay marriage as that requires you to not be limited based on sex and because that's not spelled out, you can be limited based on either your sex, or your spouse's. Tell me, how can article 16 protect gay marriage if it doesn't spell it out that it can like it does for race, region and faith?[/QUOTE] If it were to just say "Men and women of full age have the right to marry and to found a family" it would have the same meaning it does now. It mentions race, religion etc because it was written in the 40s, not because it only protects against discrimination for those reasons. Whether this includes same-sex marriage falls under the definition of "marry". [QUOTE=Glaber;48168846]proably not, but then again there's nothing now stopping them from going straight of their own free will.[/QUOTE] It'd be exactly as unthinkable for a gay person to go straight as it would be for you to go gay.

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48161151]I'll bet Japan within a month legalizes it or something. They just aren't that kind of nation to not, I mean I feel like they're really a progress nation so they would definitely. Maybe it's just me. In fact I'm surprised they didn't have it legal already.[/QUOTE] This is the same nation that places so much stress on boys and girls in school that they clean up their own school...and then go to crunch school where they take all the classes that were missed and needed but the school day isn't long enough to actually get to those subjects. That'd be like expecting every American student to go to the Learning Tree or equivalent tutoring services for 5 fucking hours more. They're also extremely gendered in their roles to the point where its slipping and tripping over relationships, men don't want to put in the effort for relationships and a growing number of Japanese women actually hate the idrs of any sort of intimate touching. Their entire society is conservative and they demonize some races and fetishize others. Fuck sake, they were still doing blackface until I think like 5 years ago? And no it wasn't some cultural celebration, it was literal blackface.

I'm getting too upset by this. I'm out. I apologize for my rudeness.

[QUOTE=Altimor;48168862]If it were to just say "Men and women of full age have the right to marry and to found a family" it would have the same meaning it does now. It mentions race, religion etc because it was written in the 40s, not because it only protects against discrimination for those reasons. Whether this includes same-sex marriage falls under the definition of "marry".[/QUOTE] and the Deceleration of Independence was written in 1776, point? Just because something was written a certain way years ago doesn't mean it's automatically updated. As long as something is written a certain way, its meaning is determined by the words there. Tell me, why would something even have to be worded this way in the first place? ((1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.) [editline]10th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Altimor;48168862]It'd be exactly as unthinkable for a gay person to go straight as it would be for you to go gay.[/QUOTE] Why is it unthinkable? [quote]The concept of “sexual orientation” is itself less than 150 years old, and almost equally recent is the notion that people should partner based on romantic attraction. Most of what feels so natural and unchangeable about our desires—including the bodies and personalities we are attracted to—is conditioned by our respective cultures. The majority of straight American men, for instance, will tell you that they have a strong, visceral aversion to women with bushy armpit hair. But this aversion, no matter how deep it may now run in men’s psyches and no matter how nonnegotiable it may feel, is hardly genetic. Up until the last century, the entire world’s female population had armpit hair, and somehow, heterosexual sex survived.[/quote] [url]http://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/[/url]

[QUOTE=Glaber;48168900]and the Deceleration of Independence was written in 1776, point? Just because something was written a certain way years ago doesn't mean it's automatically updated. As long as something is written a certain way, its meaning is determined by the words there. Tell me, why would something even have to be worded this way in the first place? ((1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.)[/QUOTE] Because discrimination by sexuality wasn't seen as an issue, while discrimination by race, nationality and religion were. While it specifically mentions certain types of discrimination, it makes no exceptions either. The wording of that unquestionably grants everyone, including homosexuals, the right to marry. What's up for debate is whether "marriage" includes same-sex marriage. [QUOTE=Glaber;48168900]Why is it unthinkable?[/QUOTE] Would it be possible for you to decide to start liking men? Even if a sexual orientation is developed after birth that doesn't mean you can change it later.