'Beat' Takeshi rejects anti-gay accusation

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -2

    susieuk

    On Monday, Kitano said: “I was only talking about people who love their pets so much that they may think of marrying them.”

    “There is no way I look at gay people the same as animals, let alone implying sexual relations with animals,”

    ? so ??? but you just said "people who love their pets so much that they may think of marrying them.” huh?

  • -1

    johninnaha

    What a slimy worm!

    As I said on another topic, Beat Takeshi and crew are one of the reasons we don't have a TV.

  • 3

    Probie

    On Monday, Kitano said: “I was only talking about people who love their pets so much that they may think of marrying them.”

    No, you weren't.

    There is no way I look at gay people the same as animals, let alone implying sexual relations with animals,”

    Yes, you did.

    He makes an unfunny, offensive joke then splutters out excuses when he gets called-out on it.

    I'm surprised he didn't go politician-style and just say it was "regrettable".

  • 16

    Harry_Gatto

    No, Beat had his words misinterpreted and probably mistranslated by the media who blew it up out of all proportion just to get attention.

  • 1

    JapanGal

    The guy lied about not drinking and crashing his motor cycle, is very cruel to his guests both verbally and physically, so it does not surprise me that he is a gay basher.

    I immediately turn off his shows when I see him come up.

  • 4

    Robert Dykes

    what ever. I like some of his movies, but he is a dinosaur now. He may have been a landmark comedian in Japan at one time. HE was even an amazing world actor. Now... he is just one more face among the sea of talento that infects Japan collecting his weekly paycheck.

  • 6

    gaijinfo

    I think in order for the apology to stick, he should marry a gay animal.

  • 4

    borscht

    Actually, Beat Takeshi said something unfunny (shocking, I know), and pretty humdrum - lots of anti-gay marriage advocates in the US say after gay marriage will come human-animal marriage (well, maybe for them); so as a comedian, Takeshi failed and as a creative type, he failed. Now, as an apologist, he fails again. All he needs is his plastic hammer.

  • -2

    yasukuni

    These continually enraged gay campaigners should take their witch hunts to some other country.

  • -5

    NetNinja

    Well, it's a big wake up call. You see, we don't know who's gay and who's not. Some just can't come out and say that they are gay. In the entertainment and film business there are many people who are gay. They are also the same people who help pay for his movies.

    It's not just activists speaking out that makes people like Beat retract their remarks. It's the pinch on his money artery that makes him cough. The industry won't stand for it.

    Beat hasn't been misinterpreted. That's PR calling it that. Actors, Actresses, Directors, Producers at times WILL get very REAL on you. They are human and the PR filter they have over their mouths comes off sometimes.

    Even Will Smith GOT VERY REAL on a reporter the other day and slapped him. So YEAH, I believe that Beat slipped. Freud was right. They are after all HUMAN. It's just a momentary lapse where he forgot how the industry works and that all types ESPECIALLY in the movie industry are of different races, genders and preferences.

    @Japantodaykenji I'm very sorry that the world is blocking you from what would make you happy. I have suffered just the opposite. Both victims of being denied our right to choose. I hope someday things will get better for all of the human race and not the select few who want to rule how people live. May not see it in my lifetime though.

  • -4

    hoserfella

    I'm sure someone reminded him remarks like that font go down well in Cannes, where for some inexplicable reason he is respected (despite the fact that all his yakuza films are rip-offs of Reservoir Dogs)

  • -6

    FightingViking

    Probie On Monday, Kitano said: “I was only talking about people who love their pets so much that they may think of marrying them.”

    No, you weren't.

    “There is no way I look at gay people the same as animals, let alone implying sexual relations with animals,”

    Yes, you did.

    He makes an unfunny, offensive joke then splutters out excuses when he gets called-out on it.

    I'm surprised he didn't go politician-style and just say it was "regrettable".

    "Lost in translation"...

  • 1

    Onniyama

    Why does he even have to be on tv all the time anyway? You don't see other "world renowned" movie directors on the tube everyweek wearing pink, little girl outfits and making idiotic comments. The fact that he stoops so low to even participate in these idiotic tv programs, displays how much of a chump he his. Get lost already!

  • 2

    paulinusa

    Takeshi's version of damage control .

  • 5

    Wakarimasen

    So why when peiople make actively pro-gay comments it is fine but when they make anti gasy (if that is what these are) then alkl hell breaks loose?

  • -2

    zichi

    The joke is on him! Too little too late and he had better stay out of Hollywood which won' forget what he said. I guess too all those on this forum who made associations between homosexuality and animals can now climb under a rock.

  • 16

    MrExpatriate

    Jesus Christ, people...

    His words were definitely taken out of context. Since some of you are too blinded by your defense mechanisms, let me break it down for you:

    Marriage, in conventional terms is the union of man and woman. So if Beat is saying, "You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then.", it is clearly obvious that he is commenting on the deviation of the conventional meaning. The animal remark is sarcastic commentary along the lines of "What's next, people marrying animals because they love them too?"

    Nowhere in that original statement is it said nor implied that he's talking about people having sex with animals. That is a ridiculous accusation and doesn't even come close to anything he said.

    With all of that being said, however, I don't agree with Kitano in the slightest bit. I think gays and lesbians should be able to marry if they want to. I think they are certainly entitled to the same rights as others. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to falsely misinterpret and shun him just to spite his comments. Grow up, people.

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    Haha! Sounds like he is backtracking. What ever. Japan may forgive him but probably not Hollywood.

    So why when peiople make actively pro-gay comments it is fine but when they make anti gasy (if that is what these are) then alkl hell breaks loose?

    That's like saying why are racist comments bad?

  • 12

    papasmurfinjapan

    It seems to me that the pro-gay crowd are the ones filled with hate and intolerance here, not the people they insist are "anti-gay" like Beat Takeshi. It's quite sad that they fail to realize their own hypocrisy.

  • -12

    zichi

    If he truly regrets what he said, he could donate the money he made from the show to the Japanese GAY organisations, and agree to take part in the next Tokyo GAY parade, dressed up?

  • 1

    Equality

    Wow. His initial statement was ill-conceived, but his second is simply idiotic.

  • -3

    cactusJack

    More like misquoted "Bible" Takeshi.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    I really wish I could separate the man from his movies, because every time the man opens his mouth I lose more of the little remaining respect I have for him as an artist. He's simply backtracking here because he knows the backlash from his comments is far more than normal and could affect his television appearances. He often bashes guests and makes snide remarks before thinking about them (or maybe he doesn't care). He should just shut his mouth and stick to movies.

  • -2

    FightingViking

    @MrExpatriate

    I was trying to make the same kind of remark by writing "Lost in translation" but I get three thumbs down while you get 5 thumbs up... (the 5th one from me). True, the "quote marking" didn't work very well but if people checked, they could have see only the last line was mine...

  • 0

    ReformedBasher

    @gaijinfo

    I think in order for the apology to stick, he should marry a gay animal.

    Thankfully I was not drinking coffee when I read that :-)

  • 2

    ReformedBasher

    @kenji

    Why is everyone being so hateful?

    Don't take it personally. If he was misquoted, fair enough. Otherwise, he is entitled to his opinion but when you are famous, sometimes you have be careful what you say, assuming he really cares about what people think. Maybe he doesn't.

  • 6

    ubikwit

    all of you people demonizing other people who oppose "gay marriage" are acting like a bunch of fascists.

    you can be against "gay marriage" and not be a gay basher.

    you're all so liberal, aren't you!

    gays have been co-opted by the maintstream, and now even obama is on the band wagon...

    it used to be that gay people acknowledged that they were different, and sometimes contributed to society artistically or intellectually to keep the dominant forces in society in check, by exposing their hypocrisy and faults.

    now the gays have a movement to coopt tone of he oldest mainstream institutions of society.

    and everything gets reduced to an atomistic "freedom of choice", a phrase echoed by many of the commentors here.

  • -3

    tomoki

    He is very "extremely" open-minded. He is not against beastuality, either, probably.

  • 2

    tkoind2

    I seriously doubt this is a misquote. It is clear that he made a dispariging remark. Now he has to live with the fallout from that. One of the few cases where I think "Shoganai" actually applies.

    Yasukuni, I am sure you want everyone who doesn't agree with you to go back to their country. Try selling that nonsense to the two or three chubby rightwingers at Shibuya station on the weekends. It doesn't fly here. Japan would sink into nothing without foreign interaction. Get used to it.

  • -10

    Aliasis

    Wow, he said something terrible, and when he got called out on it, he basically pretends he never said it? It's like, "Look, you gay people are all so sensitive, what I really said was people will marry dogs..." wait, that doesn't even make sense. That's the same thing you originally said and it's still offensive and stupid the second time around. He didn't even apologize. This guy is a total douchebag.

  • -11

    Aliasis

    It seems to me that the pro-gay crowd are the ones filled with hate and intolerance here, not the people they insist are "anti-gay" like Beat Takeshi. It's quite sad that they fail to realize their own hypocrisy.

    Oh, really? I didn't realize that I was the one discriminating against a minority group and denying them equal rights. Homophobes get mad when they get called out, and claim that those mean gay-equality people are intolerant of their outdated, prejudice opinions that actively hurt the lives of LGBT people. Cry me a river!

  • -1

    zichi

    He didn't use the old excuse, "sorry I was drunk, I can't remember?"

  • 2

    Zen student

    Marriage, in conventional terms is the union of man and woman. So if Beat is saying, "You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then.", it is clearly obvious that he is commenting on the deviation of the conventional meaning. The animal remark is sarcastic commentary along the lines of "What's next, people marrying animals because they love them too?"

    Nowhere in that original statement is it said nor implied that he's talking about people having sex with animals. That is a ridiculous accusation and doesn't even come close to anything he said.

    I agree with you 100% MrExpatriate. Well said. Because of Obama making this an even more topical issue than it already was, it's a sensitive one on everyone's mind.

    The way I see it is just another poor attempt by a very unfunny man (Kitano) trying to be funny. There are SOME (maybe one or two) Japanese comedians/actors/talento I consider actually funny, but he certainly is not one of them.

    I sometimes get the feeling that to Japanese people, 'saying something shocking' = 'funny'. It's the 'bikkuri shita' phenomenon. Bizarre.

  • 2

    nisegaijin

    No need to apoligise. He is entitled to his opinion just like gay people are entitled to their opinion that they should be able to get married; just like I am entitled to opinion that this whole gay marriage thing is a bunch of overhyped nonenense that should not even concern about 99% of the population, especially when there are more serious political and economic issues.

    I would also like to point out that Obama completely flipped flopped on this issue at start of his campaign to get more leftist votes... very sad.

  • 2

    GW

    Takeshi is an idiot we all know that, but seems pretty clear to me he was very wrong/poorly quoted in english.

    And the gay community has imo clearly taken a HUGE advantage to blow this up & get some publicity.

    Maybe Japan is becoming like the US where "groups" are forever trying th put THEIR SPIN on things.

    This is a whole lot of wastewd time is what this is, but hey a group get to put their spin on, ..............yeaaaaah, not!

  • -1

    DoLittleBeLate

    “There is no way I look at gay people the same as animals, let alone implying sexual relations with animals,” Kitano said

    Maybe next time he could choose a medium that couldn't be authenticated by pressing "play".

  • -1

    Erik Lars

    There's nothing wrong with Takeshi being a homophobe. What's wrong is DENYING it.

  • -1

    Erik Lars

    Kitano, whose 1997 film “Hanabi” won the Golden Lion at Venice

    So he's a has-been. Oh, I mean tarento.

  • -1

    papasmurfinjapan

    I didn't realize that I was the one discriminating against a minority group and denying them equal rights

    The problem here is you cry "equal rights" but you fail to understand the implications of your statement. Should gay couples, who have no biological means of making children, be given "equal rights" to adopt children and raise them as their own? Can a lesbian couple go to a fertility clinic and have a baby? How about gay men who want a child?

    I've heard the argument "Well its the same with hetero-couples who can't have children" but I don't buy that. I think we are all in agreement that in order to create a child both a man and a woman are needed. An infertile couple consisting of a man and woman is a hell of a lot different to a gay couple that, no matter how healthy they can can in no way naturally have children. Does that make being gay wrong? No. But does that give them the right to something that nature has never intended for them? No.

    There is a limit to "equal rights". Now I'll probably be misinterpreted for saying this (like Takeshi) but as an example we all agree that handicapped people should have equal rights, don't we? But does that mean a quadriplegic should be allowed to become an air force pilot, despite his inability to fly a plane? Am I anti-physically challenged because I deny someone a job that they physically cannot do, no matter how hard they try? Before you go off on your rant, I'm not saying gays are handicaps. I'm just pointing out that gays are not "equal" to heterosexuals in every way because there are some things they just cannot do - and many people believe they shouldn't be given the right to do them (i.e. have kids).

    The whole marriage debate is not about gay couples expressing their love for each other. It's about what constitutes a family and what rights to raise children should be afforded to couples that since the beginning of time have required both a male and female to create. Bypassing nature in the name of "equal rights" is a topic worthy of discussion is it not? It has nothing to do with homophobia, bigotry or any other derogatory comments you want to throw at someone who doesn't agree with everything you say.

  • 1

    Aliasis

    The problem here is you cry "equal rights" but you fail to understand the implications of your statement. Should gay couples, who have no biological means of making children, be given "equal rights" to adopt children and raise them as their own? Can a lesbian couple go to a fertility clinic and have a baby? How about gay men who want a child?

    Um, yes on all accounts? Gay people can (and DO) have children no matter the method, be it adopting, in-vitro, sperm donor, children from previous relationships, whatever. Why is whether or not gay sex makes a baby important? Ability to be parents is important, to care for children's needs - which gay people are fully capable of.

    You bring up infertile straight couples but say it doesn't compare, however, it obviously does if you're talking about the ability to make babies. Are you saying marriage is only about making babies and having families? In that case, you're discounting hundreds of thousands of marriages that don't or can't naturally have children - not just medically infertile people, but old people, and people who choose not to have children.

    If you insist on calling marriage solely an institution to create a family (again, a definition that many people will protest) then that still has nothing to do with gay people. As I said, gay people can and do have children and make families. Being gay has nothing to do with one's desire to have a family. Even if you're against using medical means to have children (something straight couples also do when they feel they need to) are you against adoption? I should hope not.

    As far as "nature" goes, no one is saying that two men or two women can biologically make a baby together via natural intercourse. Why does that matter? Being gay is not unnatural. We've actually observed gay animal couples "adopting" and raising the baby together - those gay penguins come to mind from some American zoo. Why is nature an argument, anyway? A lot of things happen and don't happen in nature that we would or wouldn't do in civilized society. But we don't live in nature, and we have the human advantages of a conscience and sense of morality, mercy and peace. We can't just arbitrarily use "nature" as an argument when we don't in other cases - I'm sure you enjoy cooking food and using your air conditioner, for example.

    The point is, your argument isn't very strong and it's very easy to pinpoint exactly what you're against. I support any loving couple - gay or straight - to commit themselves together legally and to start a family if that's what they want. Why would you want to deny people that?

  • -4

    ExportExpert

    papasmurfinjapan very very very well said,

    if they want to show they love each other then how about a civil union, marriage is something else.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    As far as "nature" goes, no one is saying that two men or two women can biologically make a baby together via natural intercourse. Why does that matter?

    Because, by your own definition, does that not make gay intercourse, unnatural? You are saying they have every right to something that nature denies them? Infertile couples are different because they have only been denied due to a genetic glitch. I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference between an infertile hetero couple and a perfectly healthy gay couple, but no doubt nothing I can say will make you see any differently so I won't even bother.

  • 0

    tkoind2

    The bottom line is that who someone decides to marry is none of your business. Does it really impact your life? Especially when many places are already providing most of the legal protections?

    The point is that conservatives want to define this as natural or not, godly or not, about procreation or not. But in fact event straight marriage is not universally defined in any of these ways. The bottom line is that this is one group of people trying to impose their morality and world view upon others. Let’s call it social imperialism or repression, because that is what it is.

    I am straight and married. Whether or not a gay couple gets married or not does not change my life in any way. It does not rob me of my wife, kill off our ability to have or not have children, rob us of our careers, take away our homes or kill our pets. In fact is does nothing at all to me, my neighborhood, family, friends of world.

    They get married and get on with their lives. Even of story.

    The problem is that so many people out there are too bored, too over confident in their world view or too much the ideologue to just live and let others live. If you spent more time focused on your own lives and not meddling in the lives of others, perhaps you could be happier, more fulfilled human beings. So look to your own affairs and leave others in peace. How hard is that?

  • -1

    Aliasis

    Because, by your own definition, does that not make gay intercourse, unnatural? You are saying they have every right to something that nature denies them? Infertile couples are different because they have only been denied due to a genetic glitch. I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference between an infertile hetero couple and a perfectly healthy gay couple, but no doubt nothing I can say will make you see any differently so I won't even bother.

    No? I'm having trouble reading my post and even trying to imagine how to came to that conclusion. Sex is NOT about procreation in the human species. We have sex not because it's a chore we have to trudge through to make babies but because we enjoy it, it feels good, natural, self-fulfilling. Additionally, we enter romantic relationships not with the prerogative of making babies, but because attaching ourselves to someone we love also feels good, natural and self-fulfilling.

    You can't have your argument both ways - either you're saying that marriage should always end in popping out babies, or it doesn't have to. No, there's not a difference between an infertile straight couple and a gay couple just because you want there to be. What's important? Biologically creating babies? Then, as I said, if you've read my previous post, you're denying marriage to more than just gay people. Infertile people, old people and people who choose not to have children also cannot get married, right? But gay people more often than not also want to have children, and it's more than possible for them to have children - it's common! in the end, you're just discriminating against gay people, and children whose parents did not create them via vaginal intercourse (including adopted children).

    In short, your argument is full of holes and is inconsistent at best.

  • 2

    papasmurfinjapan

    I am straight and married. Whether or not a gay couple gets married or not does not change my life in any way. It does not rob me of my wife, kill off our ability to have or not have children, rob us of our careers, take away our homes or kill our pets. In fact is does nothing at all to me, my neighborhood, family, friends of world.

    So what about polygamy? Marrying your sister? Or as Beat Takeshi points out, marrying your pet? That doesn't hurt you either, so should it be legal?

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    In short, your argument is full of holes and is inconsistent at best.

    I'm sorry, because I feel exactly the same way about your argument. : ) We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    Papa, nature does not form the basis of rights. Single women can adopt. Single men can adopt. So what is the difference between a pair of men adopting or a pair of women?

    I'm not sure what country you are talking about, but I thought we were talking about Japan here. In Japan there are limits on who you can adopt if you are single.

  • -1

    moneyyen

    He should drive forward with his anti-gay remarks and tell people straight out that we don't need these freaks. Many of us live here to keep our kids away from the jerks in Washington D.C. that force these freaks down our children's throats just to gain votes. Japan needs to cut the cancer before it gets out of control like it is in California and politians looking for a quick vote.

  • 4

    JeffLee

    ....but he made a reasonable apology.

    He didn't apologize. He doesn't say sorry and he doesn't retract his comment. In fact, he is defending his original comment. In no way is that an apology.

  • -2

    ubikwit

    marriage between a man and a woman (including polygamy) has been a fundamental organizing principle of society across cultures throughout history.

    although the divorce rates are extremely high compared to say 50 years ago, and the sociological reasons for that need to be investigated, there can be no question that this gay marriage movement premised on an assertion of the individual's right to choose is a movement that in effect seeks to further undermine the foundation of society.

    There's nothing wrong with Takeshi being a homophobe. What's wrong is DENYING it.

    Well, did he deny that? hehehe His comments are rather amusing in how they manage to skirt the subject at hand that so many are placing grave importance of in the movement.

    At an rate, I am not convinced that there is not a threat posed to society by this movement per se at the level of society, and speaking in defense of society against that threat does not equate with being a homophobe.

    Alas, there is always the risk of exposing our ignorance by taking a stand, but there is a lot at stake here, so provacative statements like the one made by Takeheshi at least motivate people to thresh out the issues.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    there can be no question that this gay marriage movement premised on an assertion of the individual's right to choose is a movement that in effect seeks to further undermine the foundation of society.

    You think that gay people want to undermine the foundation of society? What are you basing that on? Have you discussed it with a lot of gay people who let you in on their masterplan?

    My understanding is that gay people want equal rights. That is to say, they want to be treated as equal to heterosexuals.

    Please share with us, what dangers will society face if gay people are allowed to marry? You do realise that you can't catch "gay" right?

  • -2

    Patrick Bommarito

    ****TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE! **** If you have to retract a comment later, then ****DON'T SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!****

    GIVE ME A BREAK! ****BOYCOTT THE "BEAT"****

  • 0

    ubikwit

    My understanding is that gay people want equal rights. That is to say, they want to be treated as equal to heterosexuals.

    How so? By missaproriating a traditional social institution that has historically had absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality?

    It sounds like an aberrant form of an entitlement mentality based on a rabid form of lame individualism (as opposed to rugged individualism, based on meritocracy and achievement).

  • -6

    showmethemoney

    The moralizers among us. They are persistant, they are determined. The trouble is that they think they are intelligent. In fact, they give us the dumbest, most inconsistent and irrelevant statements over and over again, and won't stop, because they are presistant and determined.

    Some homosexuals want to have a homosexual marriage. it won't hurt you, society or anything but some moralizer's pathetic pea-brains when they try to grasp that two men or two women are married as opposed to the greater simplicity of having only marriage between a man and a woman. They detest allowing the world to be as complicated as it really is, because they already have enough trouble keeping up. So they hold fast to the little rules that make the world seem simpler.

    Not to condemn all morals, but the moralizers always cling to the meaningless fringe rules like this one, and know nothing of the heart of morality. A fine example would be the morality of letting people be free and happy where it harms no one. That is at the heart of morality. Opposition to homosexual relationship is on the fringe.

  • -1

    showmethemoney

    In Beat's defense, I concur with his view that relaxing the rules of marriage may well lead to further relaxing of the rules. I think you would be foolish not to realize that there are people who want to marry their pets and they are thinking just what Beat said.

    It just does not make a damn bit of difference. The point is irrelevant. I still support same-sex marriage just as I accept the risks that come with freedom as being worth it. To get mad at Beat is to make the point seem relevant though it isn't.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    In Beat's defense, I concur with his view that relaxing the rules of marriage may well lead to further relaxing of the rules. I think you would be foolish not to realize that there are people who want to marry their pets and they are thinking just what Beat said.

    It's called a slippery slope argument. There's no proof that allowing same-sex marriage will allow all the other things.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    all of you people demonizing other people who oppose "gay marriage" are acting like a bunch of fascists. you can be against "gay marriage" and not be a gay basher.

    When there are actual fascist countries that give the death penalty to homosexuals, these kind of reactions only reasonable.

    The only fascists are the anti-gay crowds.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    So what about polygamy? Marrying your sister? Or as Beat Takeshi points out, marrying your pet? That doesn't hurt you either, so should it be legal?

    Oh please stop bringing up this bogus argument over and over again... Marrying your pet is clearly impossible since animals can't give consent.

  • 1

    Seawolf

    Watching the tourists here in Karuizawa in summer season with their "dogs", I think not many would like to be able to "marry" them, but most of them for sure would go straight ahead to the town office and register their pet like an adopted child to their "kousek", if they could.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    If marrying your pet could be made legal, then they would just do that right now. There's no need for even allowing same-sex marriage. So 'Beat' Takeshi's point is clearly invalid, and it's also clear that he is a liar who's made that comment because he was covertly against gay-marriage. Why else would he make that slippery slope argument when gay marriage was mentioned?

  • 3

    CyberpunkX

    I get what he is saying, as society becomes more liberal where will the new line be drawn? Could social attitudes become so open that people start wanting to marry family members and yes, even animals? it is a possibility.

    I personally am not in support of gay marriage as I think civil partnerships already solved this anyway.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    Oh please stop bringing up this bogus argument over and over again.

    It keeps getting brought up because it is valid. Okay, forget the pets - but if we humans should have the right to marry whoever we want, then what exactly is wrong with polygamy or incest? If you support gay marriage, you should support the minorities that seek these lifestyles as well. Isn't denying a man who loves two women the right to marry them both a violation of his rights?

  • -1

    showmethemoney

    It's called a slippery slope argument. There's no proof that allowing same-sex marriage will allow all the other things.

    I should have said that Beat's statement contains truth, not that it was true or that I concur completely. I am not saying it WILL lead to other things. I am saying that other things become that much more likely. After all, acceptance of homosexuals in society has lead us to same-sex marriage becoming a reality in places while the debate continues in others, unthinkable just a couple decades ago for most people. Same with dropping of the prohibition of homosexuals in the U.S. military.

    One thing leads to another is not an absolute rule. That does not mean its never true.

  • 0

    papasmurfinjapan

    Marrying your pet is clearly impossible since animals can't give consent.

    Actually you'd be surprised. Ever tried getting a cat to do something you don't want it to do? They won't budge unless they consent. Just because they can't speak doesn't mean they don't give or deny consent. Do you think blind deaf mutes can't give consent either?

  • -4

    showmethemoney

    If marrying your pet could be made legal, then they would just do that right now.

    Nonsense. Some people are doing it, but unofficially. But the number of zoophiles and the number of supporters of them are far, far too few to change anything, plus, zoophiles do not have our attention to the point that there is any debate. Homosexuals enjoy some popular and growing support and sympathy, and their plight is part of popular debate. But once homosexuals have full rights and experience only minor discrimination, who knows? I don't think animal marriage will ever enjoy full rights, but it could become more accepted in the sense that people don't throw hissy fits about it. Or, when homosexual issues leave the forum of public debate, animal marriage and zoophiles could become the new hated scourge threatening to ruin us all, even more hated and feared than those (usually inaccurately) accused of being pedophiles.

  • 1

    zichi

    showmethemoney

    Same with dropping of the prohibition of homosexuals in the U.S. military.

    so if someone can serve and die for their country, then they should be able to marry too.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Ugh, this is so idiotic. If pedophilia and bestiality and whatever else could be legalized, then they would do it. BUT THEY CAN'T. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. STOP WITH THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT ALREADY.

    Legalizing pedophilia/whatever else will no more or less be likely after legalizing same-sex marriage. People won't look at pedophilia/whatever in any different way after legalizing same-sex marriage. This point is beyond ridiculous.

    Actually you'd be surprised. Ever tried getting a cat to do something you don't want it to do? They won't budge unless they consent. Just because they can't speak doesn't mean they don't give or deny consent. Do you think blind deaf mutes can't give consent either?

    YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTNERS. Sounds like you want to legalize marrying animals yourself?? Why are you so obsessed with marrying animals?

  • 0

    ubikwit

    You think that gay people want to undermine the foundation of society? What are you basing that on? Have you discussed it with a lot of gay people who let you in on their masterplan?

    actually, i have not asserted that the gay marriage movement has the explicit aim or intention of undermining society, simply that such is the effect of their narrow-minded and delusionally form of individualism based on an entitlement mentality with respect to "freedom of choice".

    basically, the pro faction on this page are railing about "moralizers", and and i've basically been accused being paranoid about some sort of conspiracy theory ("masterplan") on the part of the gay marriage advocates by hyper defensive, irrational people with some sort of pseudo freedom fighter mentality.

    i've been talking about societal implications, and history, and haven't heard one reasonable rebuttal yet.

    the attitude that the option o civil unions deprives gays of their civil rights is an attitude that seems to border on the sociopathic to me.

    what this may boil down to is a battle about (re)defining an important aspect of the social order, and i don't think that a victory for the gay faction in the public sphere would resolve the issue.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    I mean like you know, written or verbal consent.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    Why are you so obsessed with marrying animals?

    I'm not, but it is interesting that you avoid my serious question about polygamy and incest. I'd appreciate an honest answer. Do you support them too? If not, why not? How are their rights any different to those of gay people?

  • -2

    showmethemoney

    Marrying your pet is clearly impossible since animals can't give consent.

    Consent is just a part of the law that we have now and may well disappear again some day. Its not a part of the definition of marriage, because if it were, many marriages of the past would be nullified including Biblical ones.

    So what about polygamy? Marrying your sister? Or as Beat Takeshi points out, marrying your pet? That doesn't hurt you either, so should it be legal?

    Of course to all the above! But it should probably be illegal for sibling couples to make babies, and animal/human marriages should not receive any financial or legal benefits.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    papasmurfinjapan

    I'm not, but it is interesting that you avoid my serious question about polygamy and incest. I'd appreciate an honest answer. Do you support them too? If not, why not? How are their rights any different to those of gay people?

    What do you care about what I think? We're not talking about polygamy and incest. To be honest, I don't really care. I haven't really thought enough about polygamy and I would oppose incest on the basis that inbreeding is harmful.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    showmethemoney

    Consent is just a part of the law that we have now and may well disappear again some day.

    If people are crazy enough to remove it, then sure, it may happen. But allowing same-sex marriage will clearly not remove the consent part.

  • 0

    papasmurfinjapan

    What do you care about what I think?

    Because I think you are not looking at the big picture. Sure it's great that you are an advocate for gay rights, but you need to broaden your view and look at the big picture here. I'm trying to illustrate to you WHY a good percentage of people have issues with gay marriage. I'm not trying to change your views. I'm asking you to be understanding of other peoples concerns.

    One is the right to procreate (moreso than adoption, of course children from previous relationships are not an issue). Another is the rights of other minorities such as polygamists that should be granted if they are granted to gays. If you think gays should be allowed to get married but polygamists shouldn't, then I'm sorry to say but I'll have to call you a hypocrite. You can't just pick and choose the liberal causes that suit your agenda. You are either beliieve in "equal rights" for all of mankind, or you don't.

  • 0

    papasmurfinjapan

    Sorry, I should really preview before I post...

  • -2

    showmethemoney

    Why are you so obsessed with marrying animals?

    I am obsessed with freedom. Its why I support same-sex marriage in the first place! I am not gay! I also support polygamy.

    People won't look at pedophilia/whatever in any different way after legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Some will. Just as I believe that acceptance of blacks has led us right here to acceptance of gays. Once one group gains acceptance or so much as bands together for it, other groups are heartened they they can get acceptance as well. For example, NAMBLA was formed right on the heels of gay rights organizations, and was not expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association until 1994. And whereas pedophiles and pederasts are not treated as totally separate groups from gays and lesbians, it used to be they were treated as one and the same. Changes spark other changes. Its nonsense denying it. But its also nonsense to think every change sparks another. The truth lies between the extremes.

  • 0

    showmethemoney

    so if someone can serve and die for their country, then they should be able to marry too.

    I don't know where you are going with that zichi. I never tried to connect the two.

  • 3

    anglootaku

    Why does everyone get sensitive by others comments, Kitano has his views and others, people live their life the next day, get over it..

  • 2

    anglootaku

    Tomorrow is another day.. so not sure why a celebrities comments and views need to be the center of attention by the media all the time..

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    papasmurfinjapan

    Because I think you are not looking at the big picture. Sure it's great that you are an advocate for gay rights, but you need to broaden your view and look at the big picture here. I'm trying to illustrate to you WHY a good percentage of people have issues with gay marriage. I'm not trying to change your views. I'm asking you to be understanding of other peoples concerns.

    Again, it's a slippery slope argument. Same-sex marriage is same-sex marriage, it has nothing to do with whatever else.

    If you think gays should be allowed to get married but polygamists shouldn't, then I'm sorry to say but I'll have to call you a hypocrite.

    Who said that I think polygamy shouldn't be allowed? If there is no reason to be against polygamy, then why shouldn't polygamy be allowed? Of course this is subject to much debate.

    Can you find a good reason to be against same-sex marriage? Because I sure can't.

  • 0

    showmethemoney

    But allowing same-sex marriage will clearly not remove the consent part.

    Not directly no, not as it is in law. But it could very well lead to more debate on the subject. You seem to think consent is the answer to everything. Its not. Consent is a stone you think has been turned over to full understanding, but it hasn't. Its all the rage right now, but don't make the mistake of thinking its because its fully understood or examined. For example, few consent to punishment, but afterwards, many have neutral to positive feelings about it. The way you are telling it, no consent equals miffed for life, but that just isn't true.

  • -1

    papasmurfinjapan

    Again, it's a slippery slope argument.

    No, it's not. The rights of gays and other minorities who are persecuted and denied the right to marriage are intertwined. It's your failure to see that that is the problem here.

    Who said that I think polygamy shouldn't be allowed?

    No-one. I'm speaking in hypotheticals, and addressing everyone who supports same-sex marriage.

    Can you find a good reason to be against same-sex marriage?

    Yes I can, and I already mentioned it, many times. Read my posts. My objection is based on the right to procreation. I'm all for civil unions or marriages or whatever terminology makes them happy, but I object to the reasoning that they should be treated equal to a heterosexual couple, because they are NOT equal in sense that they cannot procreate (Please save me the infertile heterosexual argument - It's apples and oranges and I think you know it). They shouldn't be granted the right to something that nature never intended them to have.

  • -2

    Gaijintoday

    This is what I say to both sides of the debate: Get over it.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    No, it's not. The rights of gays and other minorities who are persecuted and denied the right to marriage are intertwined. It's your failure to see that that is the problem here.

    It's a slippery slope argument when you say that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to this and that or will be the cause of this and that without any proof.

    (Please save me the infertile heterosexual argument - It's apples and oranges and I think you know it). They shouldn't be granted the right to something that nature never intended them to have.

    Awesome logic. Not.

    Why you would choose to define marriage with the ability to procreate, I don't know. Technically men can't even procreate, so in your eyes men are not equal. Marriage is defined by a union of two people (or sometimes more), not the ability to procreate.

  • -1

    Ivan Coughanoffalot

    Come off it. This bloke spends the majority of his time on TV wearing wigs, brightly-coloured costumes and blusher on his cheeks.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's very pro-gay indeed.

  • 2

    papasmurfinjapan

    Well since I'm not saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamist marriage then it is not a slippery slope argument is it? Go ahead and read my posts again and tell me where exactly am I saying that.

    Furthermore your definition of marriage is incorrect. Marriage in most countries is defined by the union of a man and a woman.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    Getting back to the article (remember the article?) There are a lot of claims that the actor was misquoted/mistranslated. So my question is what question was actually asked of him and what was his actual response?

  • -1

    Hikozaemon

    Beat Takeshi isn't a name. It's a call to action.

    But seriously - I've seen Beat play gay guys in movies before - like in the movie Gonin, where after stumbling in on the house of a family he was planning to murder, he instead found the Dad had beaten him to it, murdering them himself and then committing suicide. So no doubt out of boredom or something, he started to have sex in the living room with his male accomplice.

    I'll admit, the movie isn't a banner advertisement for homosexuality, but he obviously isn't against playing gay roles.

  • -2

    Bartholomew Harte

    I think this Entire story has been "Beat" to death !

  • -2

    seesaw1

    He must be senile....lol

  • -3

    Pukey2

    Personally, I can't wait for Ishihara's opinion on this.

  • -2

    realist

    I have never liked Beat Takeshi. His shows always either bored or nauseated me. He has an annoying twitch, and his smileless face I find disturbing. I find him to be a talentless "tarento."I like him less now, after his crude remarks about homosexuals. He has really shot himself n the foot, and will be even less popular than he is already.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    papasmurfinjapan:

    Well since I'm not saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamist marriage then it is not a slippery slope argument is it? Go ahead and read my posts again and tell me where exactly am I saying that.

    Uh, hello? Is this not what you have said?:

    papasmurfinjapan:

    So what about polygamy? Marrying your sister? Or as Beat Takeshi points out, marrying your pet? That doesn't hurt you either, so should it be legal?

    Please don't act like you haven't said those things at all. You're saying the allowing same-sex marriage will "open the door" for all of those things, when there is no proof.

    Furthermore your definition of marriage is incorrect. Marriage in most countries is defined by the union of a man and a woman.

    No kidding, but after legalizing same-sex marriage it will be defined by a union of two people.

  • -2

    showmethemoney

    I'll admit, the movie isn't a banner advertisement for homosexuality, but he obviously isn't against playing gay roles.

    As long as they are murderers who have gay sex among corpses anyway. The gay community truly owes him a debt of gratitude.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    You're saying the allowing same-sex marriage will "open the door" for all of those things, when there is no proof.

    I hate to sound rude but you have serious comprehension problems. That is not what I am saying at all, I was responding to another poster whose reason for supporting gay marriage was that "it doesn't hurt anybody". My point was with this reasoning you also must accept polygamy, incest which doesn't hurt anybody, or you become a hypocrite.

    No kidding, but after legalizing same-sex marriage it will be defined by a union of two people

    Not if the majority of the population can help it. That's the whole problem here, you are trying to change the definition of something that people don't want to be changed. Let heterosexuals keep marriage as something between man and woman, and get some other legally binding contract for yourselves. Why are you trying to usurp heterosexual traditions and claim them as your own?

  • 1

    showmethemoney

    My objection is based on the right to procreation

    Yeah. And that is why you have been accused of not having a good reason against it.

    You are either beliieve in "equal rights" for all of mankind, or you don't.

    I have to agree there. When inter-racial marriage was allowed, I have no doubt that some people complained that gay marriage would be next. And lo and behold, there it is! Polygamy could be next, and why not?

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    That is not what I am saying at all, I was responding to another poster whose reason for supporting gay marriage was that "it doesn't hurt anybody". My point was with this reasoning you also must accept polygamy, incest which doesn't hurt anybody, or you become a hypocrite.

    And I didn't say that either of those things should be illegal. Btw inbreeding can potentially be harmful and on that ground I would oppose incest.

    Not if the majority of the population can help it. That's the whole problem here, you are trying to change the definition of something that people don't want to be changed. Let heterosexuals keep marriage as something between man and woman, and get some other legally binding contract for yourselves. Why are you trying to usurp heterosexual traditions and claim them as your own?

    People changed the definition in some other countries, and I think that it's only a matter of time before it gets changed in most countries.

    Who cares if it's a tradition or not? This is about equality and human rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equals as far as I'm concerned.

    How is this any different than saying that keep the definition of marriage to those who want to be confined to their own race 50 years ago?

    When inter-racial marriage was allowed, I have no doubt that some people complained that gay marriage would be next. And lo and behold, there it is! Polygamy could be next, and why not?

    It has more to do with the fact that there was a clear progression and evolution of more tolerance and acceptance. First the women's rights were recognized, then the racial minorities rights were recognized, and now we're dealing with gay rights.

    There is no proof that same-sex marriage is accepted because inter-racial marriage is accepted first (not that this is a bad thing, and slippery slope arguments usually deal with fallacious harmful events supposedly caused by the first event).

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Democracy isn't about the majority deciding something and calling it a day. That would merely become tyranny of the masses. Democracy is about defending the rights of EVERYONE, even the minorities, so that we are all as equals and we all have equal amounts of power. Even if you disagree with something, you should at least defend the rights of people. Otherwise you're only hypocritically upholding democracy and democratic values.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    papasmurfinjapan, in the end you still have not explained or reasoned why same-sex marriage should not be allowed. You are only adamantly holding onto your belief that the definition of marriage should be between a man and a woman, without really explaining why other than "just because" or "because I want it to" or "because that's what most people want".

    And then you're starting to say that if you legalize same-sex marriage, then you'd have to legalize pedophilia and incest and bestiality!! in hopes of swaying others from accepting same-sex marriage and (slightly) changing the definition of marriage. Sorry, but that's not going to work. It's nothing but a cheap tactic to justify your intolerance of same-sex marriage.

  • -1

    showmethemoney

    Let heterosexuals keep marriage as something between man and woman

    As a heterosexual, I have no desire to keep marriage as it is.

    Not if the majority of the population can help it. That's the whole problem here, you are trying to change the definition of something that people don't want to be changed.

    The compromise is of course for the government to stop doing marriages and only do civil unions. Then we will all be free to define marriage as we like. Gays will be able to say they are married and certain church groups will be able to claim they are not, and there will be peace.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    The compromise is of course for the government to stop doing marriages and only do civil unions

    I'm happy with that arrangement too.

  • 0

    papasmurfinjapan

    And that is why you have been accused of not having a good reason against it.

    It may not be a good reason for you, but it sure as hell is a good reason for me. Why is my opinion any less valid than yours?

    @Thomas Anderson

    I have no idea what you are smoking in order to come to those conclusions about what I am writing, but whatever...

    Democracy is about defending the rights of EVERYONE, even the minorities, so that we are all as equals and we all have equal amounts of power

    I agree with this, and that is what I have been talking about all along. I am truly baffled that you cannot see that. The problem is your definition of "rights" is different to mine. I believe gays should be entitled to legally binding unions in order to express their love for each other. That is their right. But I do not believe that gives them the right to usurp the traditional (admittedly religious) concept of marriage, being the union of a woman and a man.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    @papasmurfinjapan, you were backing Takeshi Kitano's assumption which was "Obama supports gay marriage. You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then,”. So how were you not supposing that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality or whatever? Just admit it instead of denying it...

    Not that it really matters because this point is trivial...

    Why can't you just accept and include same-sex marriage as the definition of marriage? What's the big deal? It's not like it's going to CHANGE anything. Your only defense so far is "What about incest and polygamy?" which is just an evasion, not an answer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NewYorkCityProposition8ProtestoutsideLDStemple_20.jpg

    This woman is holding a sign that says: "I didn't ask her to 'civil union' me".

    I believe gays should be entitled to legally binding unions in order to express their love for each other. That is their right. But I do not believe that gives them the right to usurp the traditional (admittedly religious) concept of marriage, being the union of a woman and a man.

    People or a group (religion) have the right to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. People have the right to define marriage as a union between two people of the same race. Sure. But that doesn't mean that they're being exclusive and potentially prejudiced.

    How is this any different than saying that "foreigners" will never be Japanese, even if they're legally Japanese? Japanese people have the right to say that only full-blooded 'Japanese' will be "true" Japanese, but that doesn't mean that they're not being prejudiced and exclusive, and not inclusive and accepting.

    If religion (or whatever) can't keep up with the times, then maybe it would be better if they perish. Remember the rule of evolution... it's the survival of the most adaptive.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    showmethemoney

    As a heterosexual, I have no desire to keep marriage as it is.

    This. Social conservatives are predictably trying to make this about heterosexuals vs. homosexuals (divide and conquer), but clearly that's not the case. It's about being either inclusive or exclusive, open-minded or closed-minded, prejudiced or tolerant, etc.

    papasmurfinjapan, you are not the only heterosexual who is trying to keep marriage as it is. Things are changing. More and more people, including heterosexuals, are being accepting of same-sex marriage.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    A few other things:

    papasmurfinjapan:

    My objection is based on the right to procreation. I'm all for civil unions or marriages or whatever terminology makes them happy, but I object to the reasoning that they should be treated equal to a heterosexual couple, because they are NOT equal in sense that they cannot procreate (Please save me the infertile heterosexual argument - It's apples and oranges and I think you know it). They shouldn't be granted the right to something that nature never intended them to have.

    But people don't just get married in order to mechanically procreate and beget children. People get married because they love one another. People get married because they want to be together with a partner. People get married because that's what they enjoy doing. People get married for a whole lot different of reasons.

    But I do not believe that gives them the right to usurp the traditional (admittedly religious) concept of marriage, being the union of a woman and a man.

    But we're not talking about what religious or private institutions think or whatever their feelings may be. We're talking about the governmental laws of marriage (which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it should not be involved with the government at all).

    union of a woman and a man.

    So, can people who have gone through sex change get married? What about hermaphrodites? How do you exactly define a woman or a man? The definition isn't as clear as we may think.

    Bottom line: Why can't the definition of marriage change? What exactly is "real" marriage? The definition of marriages has changed many, many times over the years.

  • 0

    Seamus78

    Takeshi is a remarkable man, a legend, a great director and an actor, yeah his comedy is pretty lame but he has a massive fan base and I am sure it will grow further....Japan need people like him instigating debate and getting the general people to think about who they are and where they live

  • -1

    serio

    I can't understand why this topic doesn't talk on Japanese media. Japanese people shouldn't ignore that topic. There are a lot of gay people who want to marrige in Japanese too!

  • -1

    Equality

    Serio - I completely agree.

  • 0

    ubikwit

    the same sex marriage folks are just a bunch of losers trying to keep up with the jones':

    oh, look, they have marriage! i want it too, because i have equal rights...

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    On Monday, Kitano said: “I was only talking about people who love their pets so much that they may think of marrying them.”

    Looks like Kitano's agent gave him a spreadsheet showing him all of the money that he would lose if he didn't prostrate himself to the homosexual community. Hey, a guy's got to make a living!

  • 0

    yasukuni

    "There are a lot of gay people who want to marrige in Japanese too!"

    Really? How many?

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    Bottom line: Why can't the definition of marriage change? What exactly is "real" marriage? The definition of marriages has changed many, many times over the years.

    Yeah, why can't marriage change? Instead of bitterly clinging to the out dated idea of marriage being between one man and one woman, marriage should be anything that any two or more consenting adult believes it should be. And please don't force upon me your outdated notion of what the words "adult" and "consent" mean, that's just being exclusionary. If the central idea of marriage can change, so can any other word as-long-as it suits my socio-political goals - am I right? Of course I am.

    Sure, marriage has been central to cultures and societies in the past; but whereas basic human nature has stagnated for thousands of years, it has changed dramatically in the past 50 years. We don't need stable families anymore. We don't need to promote some silly notion about responsibility among men and women towards a common social goal. There is no longer a responsibility to give children the best chance possible for them to be successful in the future. People have a right to do whatever they want regardless of whether or not it promotes a healthy society. Quite frankly, I could care less about what people think who are standing in our way of getting what we want. Who in their right mind would believe that traditional marriage came into being organically over thousands of years and has been proven the most important means of creating a nurturing environment for the next generation? It's just a bigoted notion that has long outlived it's usefulness. It's time to MoveOn.com

    If I want to marry three women and a man, what right does anyone have to stand in the way of what we as consenting adults want to do? If I want to marry my sister, who has the right to say our love is wrong? If I want to marry a 14 year old, why force upon me your outdated notions of what an adult is; they can procreate so they must be mature in the eyes of nature. Why can't a bisexual or transgender person be married to both a man and a woman at the same time when they very likely born with the capability to love both men and women. If I want to marry my pet iguana, who has the right to say our love is wrong? She told me she loves me. Haters are just going to hate.

    It's time to get with the program people. It's the 21st century now and modernity requires a modern view of the world. Besides, I want what I want. What you want for the benefit of society is just another way of discriminating against me and a violation of my civil rights.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    The compromise is of course for the government to stop doing marriages and only do civil unions

    Sarcasm aside, removing government from the marriage business is the only solution possible. Anything else and you will forever have people arguing over the governments definition of marriage. Let churches decide that however they want to. The government needs to mind their own business but still allow whomever wants to form partnerships to do so through private legal contracts.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    @Wolfpack, if you want to claim that a 14 year old is mature enough to be considered an adult, then you'd have to show some sort of proof or evidence.

    You're confusing that you can just arbitrarily make claims and rewrite the law without offering good reasons for then in the first place.

    You seem to be mistaking that people are trying to change the law just just because it's "old and outdated", but people are really trying to change the law because it's a good idea and it makes sense.

    So as far as I'm concerned you're making some terrible arguments.

  • -3

    ubikwit

    @Wolfpack

    removing government from the marriage business is the only solution possible.

    in a democrac, the people are the government, the people working in government are their representatives, so that sounds like a cynical statement against democracy.

    on the other hand, you grant authority to the church(es) to dictate what a marriage is.

    that obviously ignores the question as to how discrepancies between how respective religious groups define marriage.

    the democratic decision making process is the primary mechanism in modern society for resolving such controversial issues.

    at first i thought that your previous entry, which ends with the passage:

    It's time to get with the program people. It's the 21st century now and modernity requires a modern view of the world. Besides, I want what I want. What you want for the benefit of society is just another way of discriminating against me and a violation of my civil rights.

    was being sarcastic, etc. but the followup makes me wonder.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    Thomas Anderson:

    @Wolfpack, if you want to claim that a 14 year old is mature enough to be considered an adult, then you'd have to show some sort of proof or evidence.

    Are not 14 year boys and girls capable of making babies? Well, yes they are.

    You're confusing that you can just arbitrarily make claims and rewrite the law without offering good reasons for then in the first place.

    You mean like arbitrarily changing the law to allow homosexual marriage? Instead of 14 years, let's say 16 or 17 years old young adults. There are as many good reasons to make this the norm as there is for same-sex marriage. At least they are capable of creating a family. Same sex marriage is completely arbitrary because it ignores every other arbitrary type of marriage that is also possible but that just doesn't have a political lobby in support of it.

    You seem to be mistaking that people are trying to change the law just just because it's "old and outdated", but people are really trying to change the law because it's a good idea and it makes sense.

    It only makes sense if you think it is right allow an arbitrary change to the fundamental definition of marriage on grounds that apply equally to many other types of marriage. Supporters of same sex marriage have never attempted to make a rational case for why this one exception to so-called "traditional marriage" is all that is necessary.

    So as far as I'm concerned you're making some terrible arguments.

    You may feel that way, but the other side of this argument has been unable to make any argument in favor of it's position that is not based primarily on an emotional plea for compassion. What are the limits to marriage that they are proposing? Why do this limits exclude others with an equal claim to compassion?

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    ubikwit:

    in a democrac, the people are the government, the people working in government are their representatives, so that sounds like a cynical statement against democracy.

    Government is a necessity for the proper function of any grouping of people. However Democracy can still be tyrannical as long as 51% of the people can be persuaded to oppress the other 49%. Even in Democracies government is perfectly capable of routinely abusing it's power and the people it is supposed to represent. Government is a bureaucracy that develops it's own self-interests beyond the interests of the people that created it.

    on the other hand, you grant authority to the church(es) to dictate what a marriage is.

    Very true. The difference being that you can quit a church. You cannot quit the government.

    was being sarcastic, etc. but the followup makes me wonder.

    It was meant as complete sarcasm to show how same sex marriage is a fundamental alteration of the idea of marriage that will necessarily change it into something completely unrecognizable. The use of false logic is forever being used by lawyers to twist and bend the meaning of words and laws over time into something totally unrecognizable.

    Same sex marriage is a break from the foundational meaning of the word. If it becomes widely accepted, then their are no logical arguments to be made against any number of other potential marriage combinations that can be conceived. The mold is broken - marriage will no longer exist. Instead of promoting more marriage in a society in which divorce rates are already quite high, the effect will be less marriage and more of the social problems that accrue along with it.

    Marriage as it has always been conceived of in the past, developed for rather logical and common sense reasons. I believe that the entire idea of marriage will be considered irrelevant to peoples lives the more it is contorted by well-meaning but wrong headed government decisions.

    For those that believe in same sex marriage, what are the new limits to who can and cannot be married? Do you wish to arbitrarily prohibit others from marriage as well? If so, why it this any different from allowing same sex marriage? The social implications are enormous but there are been no discussion of these issues because opposing same sex marriage simply earns one the title of "bigot" and the discussion ends there.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    @Wolfpack

    Are not 14 year boys and girls capable of making babies? Well, yes they are.

    But how does that prove that they're physically and mentally mature? They're still developing both mentally and physically.

    In some states and countries the marriageable age is 16, but usually only with the parents' consent.

    You mean like arbitrarily changing the law to allow homosexual marriage? Same sex marriage is completely arbitrary because it ignores every other arbitrary type of marriage that is also possible but that just doesn't have a political lobby in support of it.

    I'm not sure why you would call it arbitrary. The only reason that you would call it arbitrary is really because you don't think homosexual love isn't as valid and legitimate as heterosexual love. I really can't think of any other reason. I for one happen to think that homosexual love is just as valid and legitimate as heterosexual love.

    If there's nothing wrong with any other type of marriage, then why not legalize them? What's the problem?

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    • Hold on! If you legalize same-sex marriage, then that means that you'd also have to legalize polygamy and incest as well! And there's nothing wrong with them! Therefore, we can not allow same-sex marriage.
    • Er, you have convinced me, there is nothing wrong with polygamy or incest, etc. So let's legalize them?.
    • No! There IS something wrong with incest and polygamy, for X Y Z reasons!.
    • Er, ok, so polygamy and incest etc shouldn't be legalized after all?.
    • Yes...
    • So, how does that make a case for not allowing same-sex marriage?
    • Er...
  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    That you should watch out for people who want to marry animals? Well, you do that...

  • -2

    ubikwit

    Wolfpack

    Government is a necessity for the proper function of any grouping of people. However Democracy can still be tyrannical as long as 51% of the people can be persuaded to oppress the other 49%. Even in Democracies government is perfectly capable of routinely abusing it's power and the people it is supposed to represent. Government is a bureaucracy that develops it's own self-interests beyond the interests of the people that created it.

    well said. max weber would concur.

    however, this same sex marriage issue is exposing some of the social schisms that can make a democracy dysfunctional. though there is bureaucratic inertia, etc. if the people are in touch with the founding notion of freedom as a defining aspect of the public interest, then they don't vote for ulterior motives in order to oppress anyone, and they can reconfigure the bureaucracy so that it serves the public interests, not its own organizational imperatives.

    the schism that the same sex marriage advocates are exposing is the definition of freedom in terms of a vapid individualism as opposed to a component of the public interest. they are trying to misappropriate civil rights as a means to further fracture society and atomize individuals.

    democracy doesn't work when atomized individuals are all voting for their perceived self interest, missing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

    i consider myself a socially progressive person, but i have to throw my backing behind the socially conservative vote in north carolina to preserve the status quo and ban same sex marriage at the constitutional level. i suppose that will find its way to the supreme court before long.

    but the point i wanted to make is that the same sex marriage advocates would also use your argument there to the effect that the vote in north carolina represents a form of tyrannical oppression of the majority against a discriminated against minority.

    i don't think that democracy is the problem, but it should be a bigger part of the solution.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    ban same sex marriage at the constitutional level.

    Good luck with that... that's never going to happen.

  • 0

    BradG91

    Obama is supporting same sex marriage because its election season most likely. Wants the gay community vote. Why support it now all of a sudden? When its been a big debate in the US for awhile now

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    This whole "It will disrupt the status quo" is one of the weakest arguments against same-sex marriage.

    That's like saying that "Eliminating slavery will cause all sorts of social problems, therefore we cannot eliminate slavery." That's a red herring/slippery slope argument, it wasn't an argument for or against slavery or why slavery is right or wrong.

    Or what about the Internet? The Internet was no doubt a social experiment and it has completely disrupted and changed the "traditional social structure". Yet no one is wanting to ban the Internet. In fact the access to the Internet will become one of the human rights.

    I have no idea what ubikwit is saying, but it sounds like he supports collectivism more than individualism, which is the complete opposite of democracy. Democracy only works when all the individuals have the SAME amount of rights and power. Democracy means POWER to the PEOPLE - Demo "People" -Cracy "Power".

  • 1

    FightingViking

    Believe it or not, I have heard (from a friend in America) that there are people who DO marry their pets...

  • 0

    ubikwit

    @Thomas Anderson

    Your attempt to associate people opposed to same sex marriage with slavery sounds like an increasingly desperate equivocation.

    The fact that same sex marriage advocates, as a group, are trying to assert their collective "right" to be recognized as being in a type of relationship that has nothing to do with thousands of years of cross-cultural practice regarding marriage, not to mention mutual intelligibility within each society relating to normal social relations would seem to be more of collectivists approach than what I am arguing.

    Your recourse to democracy in terms of something that means POWER is also an interpretation I have problems with.

    Democracy is a collective decision making process, it is not about POWER per se. In fact, power is diffused in a democracy, making it difficult for any single individual or group to exercise POWER.

    Your demand for

    the SAME amount of rights and power

    therefore seems misguided from the start.

    First of all, although the democratic process in California and North Carolina has yielded results indicating that the will of the people is strongly AGAINST same sex marriage, you persist with your aberrant assertions with respect to democracy.

    Moreover, it has not been decided by a the Supreme Court that there is a constitutional issue regarding the civil rights of people denied same sex marriage by the state they in which they reside.is a violation of their "rights".

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Entertainment

View all

View all