Beat Takeshi compares same-sex marriage with bestiality

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

  • 15

    gokai_wo_maneku

    I very much doubt Beat Takeshi should be taken seriously on this in that he will say anything to get a laugh. It sounds like that is what he is trying to do. He is a commedian after all. You may not appreciate his sense of humor, but he is a commedian.

  • 3

    JeffLee

    Typical views of a typical middle-aged Japanese man, a la "Hidekazu".

  • 1

    JeffLee

    He is a commedian after all

    He is also a serious film director of international acclaim.

    (Sorry, I meant kazuhide, above)

  • 27

    recherche88

    At least in the translation he didn't compare same-sex marriage with beastiality. He seems to be suggesting there is no limiting priciple if you extend the traditional definition of marriage.

  • 6

    Tamarama

    Even if he is trying to be funny, and there is no evidence he is, that is an outrageous thing to say. Very poor taste.

  • 0

    yabits

    It is no surprise that an idiot would express an idiot's viewpoint.

  • 5

    Probie

    Kitano is an idiot. Why people think he is funny is a mystery to me. It's painful to watch, which is why I don't watch.

    Him coming out with something so stupid and childish doesn't surprise me at all.

  • 11

    NZ2011

    Looking at everything that has gone on in this country lately and some of the absolutely crazy things that come out of the mouths of politicians, mayors and so on only backs up even more my belief that Japans singular biggest problem is older Japanese men. (not all of course but many influential ones).

    The same could be said about many countries of course, though the breed here does seem particularly out of touch with any kind of reality.

  • 8

    Tomasz Stasinski

    Did he speak from experience? I mean I wouldn't know the first thing how to compare the two having tried neither.

  • 3

    tmarie

    I don't get why people like HIM. His movie? Fine. But him? He's not all that interesting, His shows aren't bad until he dons some stupid costume and tries to be funny. Sadly, not surprised at his comments. People is Japan just don't accept it - well, they don't think Japanese can be gay! Until they wake up and realise that about 10% of the population is gay, we'll have to listen to such ignorant comments.

  • 11

    spudman

    It's an opinion, not the most radical one out there. Personally I think the whack on the head all those years ago has taken a bigger toll on Kitano than people think. He's funnier than Tamori but both of them are aging dinosaurs. move on.

  • 2

    Maria

    I don't see why anyone on this forum who follows the news would be shocked by this; U.S/ right-wing/ Christian/all of the above opinion on the matter have been saying the same thing for as long as the topic has been alive.

  • 6

    albaleo

    @recherche88: Thanks for bringing some sense to the discussion. If that is what he meant, then he has a point. And I know gay people who have a similar point of view. Not all gay people (nor all straight people either) have a burning desire to embrace the concept of marriage. In the UK, a "civic partnership" status was introduced some years ago that confers the same legal rights and responsibilities on gay couples that married couples enjoy. Many gay people seem satisfied with this arrangement as it deals with the thorny issue of inheritance rights among other things. But oddly, the legal relationship only applies to same-sex couples. There is one point of view that civic partnership should be extended to straight couples too, and this should be the only legally recognized form of partnership. Marriage is something that should be outside of the law and be a purely personal thing with no legal status. Then there would be no need for these debates in which it is unclear whether the issue is one of equal rights or language definition.

  • -13

    Elbuda Mexicano

    I really like him and I know he must work with many gays and lesbians, it is part of the tv world here in Japan, he is just taking the piss out of them to get a laugh, me thinks, no need to get all bent out of shape about Mr.Takeshi's outrageous comments. This is JAPAN, not San Francisco etc..get a life if you can not handle Japan, time to reflect on deeper issues, say radiation that may kill many of us here in Japan, not discriminating at all on your private sexual desires.

  • 0

    ReaperInc

    @ kurisupisu: Thankfully there are no straight couples who are known to practice that... >.< Please tell you were joking, because the thing you described is nothing out of the ordinary in the world of erotics.

    Also, whether or not Takeshi meant it as a joke, it is still a terrible thing to say and is high on the list-of-most-idiotic-arguments-against-gay-marriage. I am proud to live in the country that was first to legalize gay marriage :) In my opinion there are no valid arguments against it.

  • 4

    kurumazaka

    I think bestiality is a bit of a stretch. But this does open up a few doors. Seriously, if gay marriage is fine, what makes polygamy so bad? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, why not? Prepare for FLDS to mount a legal challenge calling anti polygamy laws religious persecution.

    • Moderator

      Polygamy is not relevant to this discussion.

  • -17

    kurisupisu

    Anal sex is part of a homosexual lifestyle.

    Beat Takeshita is of course aware of this-his comment makes more sense in this light.

  • 3

    NetNinja

    This man is wrong. It's all about the right to choose. I know exactly how these people feel. The government telling you who you MUST and who you can't be with. In your daily lives you don't hear about the people who have been forced into marriage in Japan and you also don't know of all the countless others who have been DENIED.

    Marriage is a union that should NOT be granted by the government but by the free will of the two parties involved. Failure to recognize these people based on their gender is illegal discrimination.

    It doesn't matter if it sits well with you are not. You don't like it. Tough toe nails. The two are standing in front of you and the two have openly consented to entrusting each other with their health and welfare. To claim they don't deserve marital benefits is unfair.

    Power of attorney forces any institution to recognize the spouses. It does not however grant them permission to marital benefits such as tax breaks, insurance, and a number of other things. This is illegal.

    That's my two cents. I'd love to punish Japan's government for all the illegal marriages that they themselves endorsed but yet won't endorse two people who are in love because they are the same gender.

    The government is wrong.

  • 3

    Jonathan Hunt

    Now, I think the fact he specifically mentions Obama is a big part of his statement. I think he's taking a jab at the president by saying that as soon as something becomes a hot topic, that's when people jump on it. Do you really expect Kitano to join the bandwagon? I think what he's saying that if bestiality became a big issue in America, with liberals defending the rights of people to do what they want, then you'll get all these big, high profile people who actually hadn't said anything about the issue before coming out and showing their support in the most attention grabbing way possible.

  • 1

    Jonathan Hunt

    That, or he could just be close-minded. I'd prefer the former.

  • 2

    Thomas Anderson

    It's a slippery slope argument...

  • 3

    NetNinja

    P.S: If the world's population is going to shrink and there is no baby boom like the government wants then Let It Be!. There are too many of us on the planet as it is.

    Truth be told, nobody gives a £$$^ who you marry. However the government has mathematical equations on birth rates and taxes. You are money to them. Your baby is money to them. How is TEPCO going to pay all that debt back if the government allows same sex marriages? There may not be a baby boom.

    You are an asset to your society even if they don't like you. You represent tax income. In order for any country to survive they must encourage you to procreate even if it's NOT your choice.

  • -3

    Maria

    @kurisupisu: Anal sex has, according to statistics, been part of many people's "lifestyle", so what? This is an uttelry idiotic argument ("If gay people can marry, then what's to stop someone marrying a baby, or a cow, or a chair, or an ice cream?").

  • 7

    Serrano

    "same-sex marriage"

    Weird.

  • 15

    Azusa Suzie

    The article heading is not quite as Kitano said in words, thus very misleading and can provoke cotrovesy. Media, u've done it again.

  • 12

    albaleo

    @Maria " then what's to stop someone marrying a baby, or a cow, or a chair, or an ice cream?"

    Lack of mutual consent?

  • -4

    YuriOtani

    kurisupisu, you are not serious? Many guys like to perform anal sex with women. If my guy tried it, would give him a fat lip! Oh sorry love...

  • 0

    Tamarama

    Elbuda mexicano

    This is JAPAN, not San Francisco etc..get a life if you can not handle Japan, time to reflect on deeper issues, say radiation that may kill many of us here in Japan, not discriminating at all on your private sexual desires

    What are you talking about?! This has nothing to do with being able to 'handle' life in Japan at all! Is Japan not capable of a slightly more circumspect reflection on this issue? I this the best we can expect from Japan, as you seem to be implying? Of course it isn't. Just look at what Taiga Ishikawa said in response - a far more mature way to present an opinion. This guy has made a moron of himself by showing absolutely no sensitivity to others - especially the homosexual folk he works with.

  • -4

    kurisupisu

    @Maria

    I am sure that marriage to a 'chair' is an impossibility in any culture....

    However, you may want to check out the definition of Bestiality for your own elucidation.

    And you suggest that in marriage anal sex is prevalent?

    Not in my experience.

  • 0

    gaijinTechie

    compared same-sex marriage with bestiality.

    That's funny, I thought the same about his "comedy acts". When he's serious, his work is a pleasure to watch, though.

    I didn't know this subject was so dear to him. Hmm... Let me just make my own assumptions about that and spread my conclusions without allowing him to elaborate on his behalf (because, you see, that's how it works when you speak first and think later, if at all). Also, because people who use Reductio ad Absurdum propaganda technique (among others) in so transparent way are dum-asses.

  • -3

    albaleo

    Sorry, Maria. That last comment shouldn't really have been directed at you, but at those suggesting the idea you were criticizing. Which kind of reflects on my original post where I said Beat Takeshi may have a point. (My weaselly excuse is that I didn't say it was necessarily a good point.)

  • 0

    WilliB

    I did not expect I would ever agree with Beat Takeshi, but here he is right. He did not, as the headline misleadingly states, "compare" same-sex marriage with bestiality. He simply pointed out that removing the simple definition of "1 man + 1 woman" opens all sorts doors.

    If 2 men are now a marriage, then why stop there? Unless you establsh a new artificial boundary at "2 men", which then can be easily attacked, because if any constellation that loves each other is a "marriage", the sky is the limit for imagination.

    I have made the same point before.

  • 6

    Dragoncloud64

    I think bestiality is a bit of a stretch. But this does open up a few doors. Seriously, if gay marriage is fine, what makes polygamy so bad? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, why not? Prepare for FLDS to mount a legal challenge calling anti polygamy laws religious persecution.

    I think it's a bit of a stretch too. Where does he mention bestiality in his speech? I think it's a bit irrelevant.

  • -5

    WilliB

    Maria:

    " Anal sex has, according to statistics, been part of many people's "lifestyle", so what? "

    Sex has nothing do with it. 2 men living together should not be called a "marriage". If and how they hump each other is completely irrelevant to that.

    " This is an uttelry idiotic argument ("If gay people can marry, then what's to stop someone marrying a baby, or a cow, or a chair, or an ice cream?"). "

    It is not idiotic, it is completely logical. If you disagree, try to explain why it is idiotic in your mind. The range of sexual preferences is endless. If you define marriage by having sex, then why stop at "2 humans"?

  • 13

    Mirai Hayashi

    Who cares what he thinks...false authority

  • -5

    nyunt_shwe

    Who is an idiot, Obama or Takeshi? I don't think Takeshi's much wrong! This gay business should put behind the scene; they can enjoy their relationships in hiding. This relationship is not to celebrating openly. No parent take pride having a gay or lesbian offspring. They only accept it conditionally when there is no other choice because of parents' love to their children.

    I support Beat Takeshi's view and hope he would not retract it!

    Bravo Beat Takeshi!!!!!!!!!

  • 1

    Michael Craig

    GLAAD is gonna "eat" this guy!

  • 3

    wowyouguys

    @WilliB That argument is idiotic because a baby, a cow, a chair, an ice cream, or anything that is not a **consenting adult **cannot legally sign a marriage contract!

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    I love this guy's movies and respect him as a writer, director, and actor, but some of the things he says on these talk shows are ridiculous, and this is among them. I think this is a case where 'regrettable' actually fits.

  • -7

    ExportExpert

    Takeshi IS CORRECT more people need to speak up about this subject, homoism is wrong for evolution of humanity and procreation.

    But imagine if one of us posted on here that same sex marriage was akin to bestiality, the mods would delete it, but coz beat takeshi said it they will publish the article.

    Next thing people will be wanting to marry their SHEEP.

  • 0

    Geoff Gillespie

    Anal sex is part of a homosexual lifestyle. Beat Takeshita is of course aware of this-his comment makes more sense in this light..

    If you knew more about this particular subject, you would know that animals do not customarily indulge in anal sex and likewise a large percentage of homosexual couples do not engage in penetrative sex, prefering masturbation. In this light, his - and your - outrageously homophobic remarks make no sense at all...

  • 2

    jforce

    @albaleo&netninja: Couldn't agree more. Marriage should definitely be outside any government. It is personal. Now it's the legal issues that become a burden. Personally, I believe that marriage is a partnership for the mutual benefit of the couple. Couples should be ready to take on the responsibility of entering said partnership (which obviously most people don't based on the high divorce rates in the western world) and they need to understand that if the partnership fails things get messy. Here is where we need to fix things ... who cares who gets married.

    As for Takeshi: He has an opinion, and he's entitled to it. People should calm down because it will be forgotten in a few days until the next dumb comment pops up.

  • 1

    NZ2011

    Ok people.. Its very simple.

    In many countries, Japan included, there is no other way to officially recognise a committed relationship other than marriage, if TWO PEOPLE regardless of sexuality, gender or otherwise (with-in the law in regards to age and relation etc ) want to make a commitment to share their lives together as a loving couple, why should they not be afforded the same rights, protection and privileges such as tax, housing, health as any other couple.

    The International Human Rights Commission states amongst its many rules that people may not be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sexuality.

    Also, somewhere in there is the very simple statement, no-one can tell you who you may love, which I think says it all.

    Im not sure why every one is so concerned about what other people get up to in the privacy of their own homes, as long as people are paying tax and obeying the law its isn't anyone's business, and probably says more about their own issues than anything else.

  • -2

    kurumazaka

    Ok, you win, here ya go. "Beat Takeshi is a homophobic monster who should be forced from the airwaves for his Neanderthal views about gay marriage." There, does that fit the appropriate acceptable opinion format??

  • 0

    Mocheake

    I don't agree with his statement but I do agree with the sentiment. Marriage as I believe it to be equals a person born as a man and a person born as a woman. No changes in between. Period.

  • -4

    Onniyama

    Yabits and Probie. Very well said! He is an annoying idiot. Wonder if he had on a little girls costume when he made the remarks.

  • 1

    y3chome

    WilliB - Marriage isnt defined by who/what you can have sex with. Would someone disabled and unable to have sex be ineligible for marriage then?

  • 0

    jessebaybay

    so many things wrong with that statement he made -_-

  • 1

    YuriOtani

    Not sure why I was hit, what 2 adults do is their own business.

  • 4

    Bluebris

    @Maria You're wasting your time trying to talk sense to some people on here, but I appreciate and understand what you're saying.

    The idea of people trying to marry sheep or chairs is just ridiculous, because the sheep or chair cannot express love to the other person.

    10% of people are gay, about the same as the number of people who are left handed. Why should those 10% of people be ostracised and victimised because of their sexuality, something they did not choose?

    Takeshi is an idiot. Does he have a new movie or tv show or something he's trying to promote?

  • 11

    Probie

    I think bestiality is a bit of a stretch.

    Anal sex is a bit of a stretch...

  • -5

    WilliB

    y3chome:

    " Marriage isnt defined by who/what you can have sex with. "

    That is what I am saying. It is the same-sex advocates who want to define marriage by having sex.

  • -2

    WilliB

    NZ2011:

    " if TWO PEOPLE regardless of sexuality, gender or otherwise (with-in the law in regards to age and relation etc ) want to make a commitment to share their lives together as a loving couple, why should they not be afforded the same rights "

    So, you want to draw a line at TWO people. Can you explain why? Isn´t awfully discriminatory to situations where THREE people or FOUR people or FIVE people want to share their lives?

    Also, you draw a line at PEOPLE. Why? Can a dog not express its love? A cow?

    You have a lot to explain if you want to define your new, artificial limit at "two people" discriminating against all those who you want to exclude.

  • 3

    wowyouguys

    WilliB:

    Can a dog or a cow go into the ward office and sign all the marriage paperwork?

  • 1

    johninnaha

    Beat Takeshi is one of the reasons we don't have a TV.

  • -2

    Pukey2

    It doesn't matter what this tarento says. Nothing will change the hope given by Obama. If Kitano loves joking, then I'd sure love to see him make a joke about the Imperial Family.

    WillB:

    It is the same-sex advocates who want to define marriage by having sex.

    You're confusing the two meanings of sex - it can also mean 'gender'. But then again, people like you like to twist other people's words.

  • 2

    Christina O'Neill

    Bigotry is just that, whether it is insulting remarks concerning , homesexuals, cultural bias ,religios choice gender, ect, personaly I have no time for those who are judgementaly biased against our fellow human beings

  • -2

    Franck TheGaijin

    how disappointing

  • -1

    Franchesca Miyara Yang

    MariaMAY. 18, 2012 - 08:33AM JST

    @kurisupisu: Anal sex has, according to statistics, been part of many people's "lifestyle", so what? This is an uttelry idiotic argument ("If gay people can marry, then what's to stop someone marrying a baby, or a cow, or a chair, or an ice cream?").

    Maybe part of people's lifestyle around you but certainly not MINE! Ugh Gross...

    That said, Gays have my full support... I don't give a rat's behind about their sex lifestyle. Who cares...

  • -1

    cornbread1

    Is a man a woman? NO. Is an elephant a hippo? NO. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. If people of the same gender wish to live together, so be it, but don't call is marriage. That's where I stand on this issue.

  • -6

    YuriyChekalin

    Takeshi is 100% right. Homosexuality is just abnormal. I also don't understand why we need gay parades etc. What's there to celebrate? You don't see heterosexuals marching around...

  • -1

    cubic

    Who cares what Takeshi is saying? He's entitled to his opinion. It's a pathetic opinion, but still, why should anyone care what this old dude is saying?

  • -1

    Gudni Gudnason

    WOW the comedian got his laugh and his wide discussion across the lines, he is still the master of his game!!!! lol However what he said, meant as a joke or not, was not a nice thing to say. Even a joke about ones mother, might be funny but it still is our mother, so it hurts! However, I feel that the more "offense" is in some of the posts here where some of you are saying things like: "...these people.." referring to gays and lesbians and the statement: ".....they do have anal sex....", please guys know what you are talking about, lesbians do not have anal sex but hey monkeys do, perhaps the monkeys are "HOMOS".... and many gay men dont even have "anal sex". However, "THEY" are just like US, we are ALL THE SAME. Why are we defining our selves by how or who we have sex with? We are just ALL OF US PEOPLE, just People and the more we try to put things into boxes the more we separate each other. To create a peaceful community we need to just see each other as human beings and get along. PEACE

  • -3

    mtwildman

    "Beat"...out of sync w/modern thinking...although i like his flick's his thinking on this is definitely "Old School"!

  • -3

    Bartholomew Harte

    They don't call him "Beat" fer nuthin,folks!

  • 1

    DoLittleBeLate

    People sure are wasting their time trying to make everybody else into their own image.

  • 1

    Nessie

    So is he for it or against it?

  • 1

    Schopenhauer

    You know, Japan is facing a serious population decrease problem. We cannot expect a baby from the same sex marriage. So, it is natural that some Japanese oppose to it.

  • 2

    Nessie

    I don't see why anyone on this forum who follows the news would be shocked by this; U.S/ right-wing/ Christian/all of the above opinion on the matter have been saying the same thing for as long as the topic has been alive.

    It's because he's in the entertainment industry, which is almost unanimously in favor of same-sex marriage. He's not toeing the line.

  • -1

    kwatt

    Beat Takeshi is a very popular comedian in Japan. Don't take any word seriously. He is always trying to make people laugh with nonsense words.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    @Christina O'Neill It saddens me that you say you're against bigotry, and then people vote your comment as "bad." The anger and hate in some people saddens me.

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    His comment was really idiotic, but there's a good side to it: certainly the gay rights debate in Japan will be in the spotlight sooner, and I can't imagine a country that had a rich history of gay affairs in the samurai era will not follow Obama's example, supporting same-sex marriage.

  • 4

    zichi

    It's wrong to define people by their sex, sexuality, race, color, age, religion, mental or physical abilities. It's wrong if all people regardless of their sex, sexuality, race, color, age, religion, mental or physical abilities are not given equality and equal opportunities.

    I know that even in advanced countries, there's much more that needs to be achieved with equality and equal opportunities.

    All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

  • 1

    DentShop

    It's wrong to define people by their sex, sexuality, race, color, age, religion, mental or physical abilities.

    Why?

  • 4

    Wolfpack

    @recherche88

    At least in the translation he didn't compare same-sex marriage with beastiality. He seems to be suggesting there is no limiting priciple if you extend the traditional definition of marriage.

    This comment sums up the entire issue very succinctly. Gay marriage is not about what people do with one another in private. People of different types of sexuality do some of the same types of things in private. The issue is how Marriage is defined. Stating that marriage should be limited to only one man and one unrelated adult woman is a somewhat arbitrary rule. However, there are good practical reasons for it that were developed over thousands of years of human cultural experience. Changing the definition to include same sex marriage was the result of arguments that can be used by others to further expand the definition to include just about any number or combination of people as-long-as they love one another. As a result, the institution of Marriage and society in general suffer as a result.

  • 5

    Darren White

    When I first started speaking Japanese, one of my goals was actually to be able to understand what Beat Takeshi said because I really loved his early films, and he's got really poor diction due to a motorbike accident.

    Unfortunately, when I got to that level, I realised that he just isn't funny.

  • -1

    zichi

    DentShop

    Why?

    Because discrimination is wrong and many countries have laws which forbid it.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    As a result, the institution of Marriage and society in general suffer as a result.

    In your opinion.

  • -3

    cactusJack

    He should know.

  • -1

    zichi

    I would have thought, after the treatment he got because of his drunken scooter ****accident, he would have a better understanding of discrimination.

  • 0

    zichi

    Hetrosexual marriage is a failure since 3 in 5 will end in divorce. In too many countries women have no rights in marriage. In countries like Israel a woman has no right to divorce her husband even if he physically abused her.

    In some countries, like South Africa, a man can have many wives and in others a man can marry a child bride. There was a recent case in Pakistan of a 1-year-old child bride.

    Worldwide hetrosexual marriage is not the sacred institution claimed by some.

  • -1

    DentShop

    Because discrimination is wrong

    So... its wrong because its wrong?

  • 4

    zichi

    DentShop

    So... its wrong because its wrong?

    In all European countries, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand..... discrimination is illegal. Japan is way behind on that issue.

  • 5

    sodesuka

    Beat is saying that this same-sex marriage push is a slippery slope. He is quite right. Also, all the logical arguments you all have will not move the Japanese sense of what is right. Sorry, they know the value of a family with a female mom and a male dad, especially for children. The Japanese will not be moved. And they are right. Don't you all have a family that you wouldn't trade for the world, as wacky as they are? Didn't each one of us have a Dad and a Mom? Seems quite sensible to me to keep a marriage between a man and a woman. Beat has it right. Bit crude but correct.

  • -4

    DentShop

    many countries have laws which forbid it

    Which, according to you, means I should respect those laws

    many countries women have no rights in marriage

    Which, according to you means I should respect those laws.

    Wait, no it doesnt. Or does it? I am not sure.

  • -7

    DentShop

    discrimination is illegal

    So why is it illegal? Arent these nations the lands of the free? Shouldnt people be allowed to discriminate if they want?

  • 3

    Franck TheGaijin

    If gay cannot marry because marriage is sacred, then ban divorce If gay cannot marry because they cannot produce kids then infertile couple and old people should not be married either If gay cannot marry because that might make more people gay, it is as true as staying with tall people will make you taller... If gay cannot marry because they might adopt and kids need father and mother figure, then all single parents should give up their child as well If gay cannot marry because it might open the door to marrying animals, plants or items... yeah your dog is very likely to agree with your proposal and will sign the contract, same for the plant... interestingly it is ok in some american states to marry your cousin... just not your gay cousin I guess If gay cannot marry because the Bible said so, you should read it again, it never did. It was however ok to have 700 wives and 300 concubines, ok to have sex with your mother or sister... and other fantastic very moral activities.... If gay cannot marry because it is not natural, then condoms and contraceptive pills are not natural either, ban them too

  • 5

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    He has the right to his opinion, just as one has the right to disagree with it.

  • 2

    gokai_wo_maneku

    Well, I've been looking and looking, but I cannot find a single Japanese media or newspaper article dealing with this incident. Maybe that's because Japanese people really know how to take this? It was an attempt to get a laugh. In bad taste maybe. If anyone finds anything in Japanese media about this, I'd like to know.

  • 1

    Olrik

    Why is this issue of such importance around the world? Aren't there many more important economic, political and security challenges? However, this seems to be the only issue Western politicians will take a firm, fighting stand on, and increasingly this HAS to be pro-gay or the politician will be crucified by the media, which I guess has many gays in it...

  • 1

    Greapper1

    I hope so. I've wanted to marry my dog for years!

  • 2

    sodesuka

    Or make Beat apologize as Manny Pacquiao: 'To the gay community, I apologize' had to in LA.

    '"To the gay community, I apologize," Pacquiao said on the show, according to an "Extra" news release. "I'm against same-sex marriage, but I'm not condemning you. My favorite verse is 'Love one another as you love yourself. Love your neighbor.' So I love everybody!"' I think Manny actually held his ground but showed compassion because this issue is extremely sensitive and people get hot over it.

    Oh well ... the gay community have a right to free speech as well and I will always respect that right. Please respect the right of others who hold opinions different from their own. In fact, many in the gay community spoke in defense of Manny to have the freedom of speech in spite of not agreeing with him. It was a very American response and I am proud of those folks for speaking up for the rights of all of us.

  • 1

    genki5

    @sodesuka "Beat is saying that this same-sex marriage push is a slippery slope. He is quite right."

    EXACTLY. When the laws governing marriage are adjusted, erased, whatever...then why would it not be, by fluid, relative standards, to embrace 'marriage' between people and beast, multiple spouses, consenting (whenever age of consent is lowered anywhere) children and adults, mother and daughter, or father, same family, and so on and so on. If there is no standard, then there will be, NO STANDARD.

    And again, @sodesuka "Beat has it right. Bit crude but correct."

    I agree.

  • 0

    ReformedBasher

    I actually have a lot of respect for Beat Takeshi but I disagree with his comment. I don't think he is saying gay sex is the same as bestiality, I think he is saying that once gay marriage (with the presumption there will be gay sex) is accepted, then things will "degenerate" to the point that bestiality is also acceptable.

    As for me, I have no problems with what people do, as far as this does not hurt anyone else. I don't feel strongly in suport of gay sex or marriage but recognize your right to engage in it. And no, I'm not polictially correct at all. But I neither judge or hinder you.

    Anybody who does even minutely shown interest in Japanese history would know that homosexual relationships were often encouraged in the samurai class,and were common in other areas of society as well. In fact, you will find homosexual relationships in almost every culture, so if you're gay and think you are cool because of it, sorry but it's been going on for thousands of years, all around the world.

    That said, don't try and pick me up on the street. Or at least, understand I don't like saying "no" more than once.We'll get on far better that way. Have a nice day.

  • 1

    Virtuoso

    I think it was Lord Chesterfield who, on the subject of human sexuality, once remarked: "Abstinence is the only aberration."

  • 0

    ReformedBasher

    @zichi

    I agree with what you say but I might disgree with the definition of "advanced countries" though.

    I'm not anti-Western but I am anti-Westernisation.

  • -1

    Ivan Coughanoffalot

    I've seen leg ulcers funnier than Beat Takeshi.

  • -2

    Macpaul Emeka Ekwueme

    God bless this guy Takeshi. He must have borrowed those words from me. I made this argument 3 years ago against homosexuality. It is the simple and logical fact. Homosexuality, beastiality are all forms of perversion. Anyone practicing any of it is a PERVERT. Case closed.

  • 4

    catseye97

    I can't believe the hysteria.

  • -3

    Macpaul Emeka Ekwueme

    @valued customer, one thing missing from your historical list, is the one between same sex people. At least those people in history still had some semblance of sanity. And what is wrong with Takeshi's argument? next marriage will be expanded to cater for those practicing beastiality.

  • 1

    jj1980

    Can't believe people are still debating these kinds of things about homosexuality, while other "sexual preferences" are far more important to worry about. With all the news in Japan of pedophile crimes, and such. Or what about the weirdos who marry their pillows or stupid nintedo DS game characters? He should of been poking fun at these people.

  • 2

    Jason Lovelace

    Amazing that we can have a dissenting opinion on just about everything under the sun, ranging from the color of Toyota's newest all the way to how well Prime Minister Noda is doing (same with President Obama....to a large degree, anyway), but the minute ANYone criticizes homosexuality in any way, shape, or form, s/he is labeled, tarred-and-feathered, ostracized, and in any otherwise form derided.

    I, for one, oppose homosexuality as anything other than a deviant lifestyle. If anyone chooses to disagree, I say great and wonderful: that's what makes free nations just that - free. Used to be we could have civilized debates abut such issues.....

  • 0

    Al Stewart

    Wow man! Pretty freakin harsh words. Wonder about his opinion on marrying video game characters.

    So he just gonna stop going to Disney land too?

    I still like his movies but yeah he is gonna lose a lot of fans on this one. But hey your opinion is your opinion.

  • -2

    Franchesca Miyara Yang

    SchopenhauerMAY. 18, 2012 - 10:31AM JST

    You know, Japan is facing a serious population decrease problem. We cannot expect a baby from the same sex marriage. So, it is natural that some Japanese oppose to it.

    Since when "WE" have to expect a baby from somebody? I could care less if the population is declining. No one is gonna force anything on anybody! Women are not born to become baby factories..and neither are men for that matter. A woman (or man) will have a baby if only SHE/HE so desires...that's decision is hers/his ONLY. Same with Gay couples. Their decision! Not "WE"!!!

  • -2

    lucabrasi

    I, for one, oppose homosexuality as anything other than a deviant lifestyle

    So, you're quite happy to be living in a free society and enjoy the benefits thereof, but you don't want that freedom you enjoy to be extended to gay people who want to marry within that free society. Hypocrisy at its finest.

    .

  • -1

    BurakuminDes

    Beat Takeshi is a dropkick anyway - only imbeciles like his work and listen to his views. I mean, the high point of his "art" is hitting people on the head with plastic hammers. The sooner this constantly blinking, deformed looking conservative is taken off the screens the better.

  • 0

    BurakuminDes

    Next thing people will be wanting to marry their SHEEP.

    Only in NZ, ExportExpert! ;)

  • 0

    kurisupisu

    I want to say thanks to Beat for inciting this little debate......

  • 1

    CrazyJoe

    Individual rights must be respected.

  • -1

    Oz_Monster

    Takeshi is not comparing same sex marriages to bestiality at all. All he is saying is "how far can we go" on this issue?

    As Zichi mentioned before there is nothing special about heterosexual marriages anyway. According to NHK yesterday, out of every 4 marriages in Japan 3 have domestic violence issues against women. Japan is ranked No. 30 in the world and the USA is ranked No.24 as the best counties for Mother's (Save The Children Report 2012) Hardly fantastic results for modern industrialized nations who sanction heterosexual marriages.

    Heterosexuality, Homosexuality relationships are consensual choices and preferences between human beings, period. Bestiality, the unfortunate animal has no choice.

    As ReformedBasher mentioned homosexual relationships have been happening for centuries in many cultures. So I don't see what the big fuss is about. If gay people want to marry and the world becomes a happier place, whats wrong with that ?

  • 4

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Wow so many opinions on a topic that for most people is irrelevant but hey, if you feel offended by Beat Takeshi and his comments just thank god you are not in Iran etc..where being gay is punishable by the death penalty, learn to relax, enjoy life, enjoy Japan and enjoy your dogs too?? Cats?? etc..?? part of the topic was bestiality, right??

  • 0

    YuriyChekalin

    @zichi

    Hetrosexual marriage is a failure since 3 in 5 will end in divorce.

    Would you be so kind to point me where I can find this wonderful statistics? By the way, gay men divorce too. They also suffer from abusive relationships. It's just human nature.

  • 1

    DentShop

    out of every 4 marriages in Japan 3 have domestic violence issues against women

    You could forgive me for thinking this statistic is absolute garbage.

  • 0

    Macpaul Emeka Ekwueme

    @ lucabrasi, that has got to be the dumbest attack I've ever heard. Guy makes a good point and you had to go all out with your fallacious, ad hominem attack. PERVERSION is a choice too and losing some of the rights you enjoy in the society comes with that choice. If you wish to enjoy like the 'normal' people, then be normal.

  • 0

    tsukki

    aren't we all animals anyway?

  • 0

    tmarie

    Anal sex is part of a homosexual lifestyle.

    Funny, I would also think it is part of many heterosexuals lifestyles.

    As long as there is consent, who cares? I don't. Let people marry who they want - for whatever reason.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    I'm sure that some people have been saying the same thing when inter-racial marriage was illegal... History is repeating itself.

  • -1

    papasmurfinjapan

    Before everyone gets their undies in a knot (too late I guess), here is his original comment. You be the judge:

    「同性婚が認められたらそのうち動物との結婚も認められるようになったりね」

    He then continued

    「結婚した男2人が子ども育てるっていうけど、その子どもはどういう風になっていくんでしょうね。お前のお母さんはお父さん?とか言われるんじゃないの」

    Personally I think he raises valid concerns.

    Hmm, when I press the preview button the Japanese is garbled, so if it doesn't display correctly, apologies.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Jason LovelaceMay:

    Amazing that we can have a dissenting opinion on just about everything under the sun, ranging from the color of Toyota's newest all the way to how well Prime Minister Noda is doing (same with President Obama....to a large degree, anyway), but the minute ANYone criticizes homosexuality in any way, shape, or form, s/he is labeled, tarred-and-feathered, ostracized, and in any otherwise form derided. ... I, for one, oppose homosexuality as anything other than a deviant lifestyle. If anyone chooses to disagree, I say great and wonderful: that's what makes free nations just that - free. Used to be we could have civilized debates abut such issues.....

    Perhaps you're a little shortsighted. In case you didn't know, homosexuality for the most part is not a choice. Sure we can criticize someone for the choice that they make, but to criticize someone over something that they have no choice is in bad taste.

    In that case, it's no different than racism or sexism. Homophobia is equivalent to racism and sexism and any other form of discrimination.

  • 0

    papasmurfinjapan

    I'm sure that some people have been saying the same thing when inter-racial marriage was illegal

    No, that was based on racism. You shouldn't simply paint all people who are against homosexual marriage as "homophobes".

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Before everyone gets their undies in a knot (too late I guess), here is his original comment. You be the judge: 「同性婚が認められたらそのうち動物との結婚も認められるようになったりね」

    It's a stupid comment, anyway, since animals can't even give consent.

    He then continued 「結婚した男2人が子ども育てるっていうけど、その子どもはどういう風になっていくんでしょうね。お前のお母さんはお父さん?とか言われるんじゃないの」 Personally I think he raises valid concerns.

    This is rubbish, he's blaming the homosexual couple and not the society for not (yet) accepting the homosexual parents. What's wrong with saying "I have two fathers or mothers"? Should people with single parents also be made fun of or be bullied?

  • 0

    SumoBob

    Beat Takeshi's argument is the tired one of the "slippery slope" (it in itself a logical fallacy). If one accepts same-sex marriage, it will lead to people marrying their pet, marrying their toaster, ad nauseum. The same fallacy can be used to suggest that drinking a beer will automatically lead to binge drinking, and that eating beef and pork will inevitably lead to eating humans, since they, too, are made of meat.

    The reason why same-sex marriage will not lead to polygamy is that a marriage is a social contract between two equals, specifically two legal adults who choose to commit to each other in marriage. Add more than one person and the question of equality becomes suspect. A man with two wives has a terminal disease: who will make the decisions about his life if the two wives disagree? Have a "first" and "second" wife clause? That goes against every democratic nation's idea of all people equal before the law.

    Marrying animals or other inanimate objects? Not possible. Animals and furniture cannot enter (nor do they have the capacity to) a social contract such as marriage since they do not have legal rights. Nor cannot be held legally responsible or participate in making decisions. Ergo, the argument is ridiculous.

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    he's blaming the homosexual couple and not the society for not (yet) accepting the homosexual parents

    Er, where exactly is he saying that? You are free to interpret his comments any way you like, but nowhere does he say that directly, and his next statement seems to imply that he is not blaming the couple at all.

    What's wrong with saying "I have two fathers or mothers"? Should people with single parents also be made fun of or be bullied

    You miss his point entirely. He is saying that society is not ready to handle a kid with 2 dads (or 2 mums), and in that respect I think he has a point. It will be a rough time for the homo-family? "pioneers" in Japan, and would take years for them to be treated as equal. They have to start somewhere though, I suppose.

  • -1

    Tamarama

    WilliB

    Can you explain why? Isn´t awfully discriminatory to situations where THREE people or FOUR people or FIVE people want to share their lives?

    So, you are advocating polygamy and beastiality as the main thrust of your argument against gay marriage? Wow, really bringing something to the argument there, WilliB.

    You know, it's interesting that many of the anti-gay brigade are so fixated on the actual act of anal sex. In a number of cases quite obsessively so. Like, you are really thinking hard about it (no pun intended). I find that quite telling.

  • 4

    zichi

    DentShop If you don't follow any law of any country, then you'll leave yourself open to prosecution.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Oh this reminds me of something... Didn't some Japanese guy married (or tried to marry) a virtual video game character?

    Maybe he should have said... "What's next, marrying VIRTUAL IDOLS??".

    Marrying a fictional video game character... yes, ok.

    Marrying a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out of an anime character... yes, ok.

    Marrying a robot... yes, ok.

    But homosexual marriage? OH HELL NO...

  • 4

    zichi

    The difference is, homosexuality is legal but beastiality is not.

  • -2

    tmarie

    You shouldn't simply paint all people who are against homosexual marriage as "homophobes".

    Right, so what should we call them? I mean, besides intolerant and pathetic.

  • 0

    tkoind2

    Beat you just lost one customer for your films. I won't support any type of bigot. It is evil thinking to say that two people who love each other cannot form a lasting legal bond. I am straight and married, but that does not mean I expect all other marriages to be of the same nature as mine.

    I know same sex couples in my home town with model relationships that any straight couple would aspire to. Why should those couples be refused the chance to commit to each other legally?

    It is just another form of exclusion and it needs to stop. I won't watch anything with Beat from now on unless he retracts this thinking.

  • 0

    papasmurfinjapan

    Right, so what should we call them? I mean, besides intolerant and pathetic.

    I rest my case.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    papasmurfinjapan:

    Er, where exactly is he saying that? You are free to interpret his comments any way you like, but nowhere does he say that directly, and his next statement seems to imply that he is not blaming the couple at all.

    He is blaming the future homosexual parents for potentially being made comments by the other kids, when we really should be educating the people instead to accept and acknowledge the fact that there are homosexual parents in this world.

    You miss his point entirely. He is saying that society is not ready to handle a kid with 2 dads (or 2 mums), and in that respect I think he has a point. It will be a rough time for the homo-family? "pioneers" in Japan, and would take years for them to be treated as equal. They have to start somewhere though, I suppose.

    Well saying that allowing homosexual marriage is opening the door for bestiality is a hell of a way to start, I guess. Sounds like he's doing a real good job of making people accept homosexual marriages. Oh let's just get real, he is obviously indirectly being against the whole thing. It's obvious and it's ridiculous.

  • 3

    YuriyChekalin

    According to NHK yesterday, out of every 4 marriages in Japan 3 have domestic violence issues against women.

    This is crazy. Laughable statistics.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Eh, it could be true...

  • -2

    telecasterplayer

    Actually, there was a study a few years ago that showed that a slim majority of gay men do not engage in anal sex. Turns out that's just a stereotype.

    As for Beat, the only things worse than bestiality is the 90% of his movies that aren't "Zatoichi". Good luck on the international film scene for the rest of your life, you has-been. Yeah, not too many gay people in showbiz and the arts who'll be throwing obstacles in your path.

  • 0

    yasukuni

    No, next won't be humans wanting to marry animals. Bisexuals will want to the right to marry a man and a woman. Why not? They love each other? Who can say that's wrong?

    Poor Beat Takeshi. now he'll have to fact the wrath of the overseas entertainment world. Here it comes...

  • 1

    papasmurfinjapan

    he is obviously indirectly being against the whole thing. It's obvious and it's ridiculous

    I agree with that. He certainly seems against it, but he is entitled to his own opinion, just as we are ours. Is it really fair to berate him because he didn't use his celebrity status to stand on a soap-box and urge the Japanese student population to not bully children raised in gay households?

    For someone apparently against gay marriage, I think his comments are rather tame. But pro-rights people like to jump on anyone who dares show a point of view different to their own and make blanket statements like they are all homophobes, bigots, pathetic, intolerant as we have seen here. It is quite sad that we (not you and I, but us as a group) cannot have a civilized discussion about the topic without resorting to name calling.

  • 1

    pauleywogg

    Takeshi san is a great comedian, and the world can be a very funny place.

  • -1

    Aliasis

    Wow, this guy is a total douchebag. Yep, me being with my girlfriend and loving her and wanting to marry her more than anything... is JUST LIKE raping a dog. Yep, logic!

  • -4

    tomoki

    He is just open-minded. If Japanese sees "god" in any objects in the world, he or she could fall in love with it too.

  • -4

    samymutair

    Congratulations Takeshi for your courage, you have said just what every rational person wanted to say on this regard.

  • 1

    Angus Rofe

    I watched this episode and was also suprised! and I will now rethink my love all those beat takeshi films. I think it is also important to mention that one of the other panelist immediately and bravely gave an impassioned defence of the gay position...her hands were shaking as she spoke.....it was very brave as she might get kicked off the show.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    yasukuni:

    No, next won't be humans wanting to marry animals. Bisexuals will want to the right to marry a man and a woman. Why not? They love each other? Who can say that's wrong?

    Are you saying that bisexuals can't settle on one person?

    papasmurfinjapan:

    He certainly seems against it, but he is entitled to his own opinion, just as we are ours.

    It's not an opinion.

  • 0

    genki5

    Well, if 'Beat' was looking for some publicity at this point in his career, he was successful. Nothing like a viral reaction to opinion. Good job Beat!!

  • -2

    Aliasis

    Congratulations Takeshi for your courage, you have said just what every rational person wanted to say on this regard.

    Rational? There is nothing rational about being homophobic. Homophobia is a result of total ignorance, douchebaggery, and/or religious bigotry. There is no rational argument against homosexuality - go on, try me.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    samymutair:

    Congratulations Takeshi for your courage, you have said just what every rational person wanted to say on this regard.

    You mean irrational? He just used a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy, which is irrational.

  • 5

    zichi

    YurlyChekalin

    By the way, gay men divorce too.

    GAYS would only be able to divorce if they were allowed to marry in the first place. The levels of divorced hetrosexuals are much higher than those GAY couples which are able to marry and then divorce.

    They also suffer from abusive relationships. >

    The level of domestic violence is much higher for hetrosexual marriages.

    It's just human nature.

    Homosexuality is just human nature too.

    There are other area too which are solely created by hetrosexuality. GAYS are zero abortions. Since GAY couples are mostly childless couples they can't be responsible for the increasing levels of parental child abuse.

    If GAYS divorce they don't add to the millions of fatherless children.

    Today, 1 out of every 3 children in America is living in a home without his or her natural father. Think of that. One out of every 3 children in America will go to bed tonight without a father to read them a story, bring them a glass of water, kiss them good night, or comfort them if they have a bad dream.

  • -1

    Aliasis

    Actually, there was a study a few years ago that showed that a slim majority of gay men do not engage in anal sex. Turns out that's just a stereotype.

    If they do or not, why does it matter? Men have a sex gland the anus, making anal sex sexually pleasurable for many of them (if anal sex is unnatural, btw, why is the prostrate there in the first place?) Many straight couples also engage in anal sex and many straight men also enjoy stimulation of the prostate. Many women also enjoy anal sex (though as a woman, I have to say, I can't personally understand why). Point being, there's nothing shameful or wrong about anal sex, as long as it's done safely and cleanly (like ALL types of sex). Though many gay men don't engage in anal sex - that's true - the point is that it's not unnatural (and yes, it's been frequently observed in the animal kingdom).

    Sex between two consenting adults is just that - none of our business. I don't care WHAT anyone does in bed as long as both partners are okay with it, and they're doing that safely. Comparisons to bestiality and pedophilia are absolutely irrational and frankly disgusting, because animals and children can't legally consent and therefore it's always rape. Rape should be our enemy, here. Gay people are just a scapegoat.

  • 1

    Nessie

    wolpack wrote: Stating that marriage should be limited to only one man and one unrelated adult woman is a somewhat arbitrary rule. However, there are good practical reasons for it that were developed over thousands of years of human cultural experience

    You could say the same for infanticide. I'm guessing your not pro-infanticide.

  • -1

    combinibento

    The saddest part about this story is that his comment was not even close to being remotely original. I expected more from this comedian, artist, fillmaker, actor, etc... Beastiality? Wow, even the IQ wunderkinds over at the Tea Party had that one covered years ago...

  • 5

    tmarie

    ** According to NHK yesterday, out of every 4 marriages in Japan 3 have domestic violence issues against women.

    This is crazy. Laughable statistics. ** Why? Nearly every Japanese female friend I have has been hit by a boyfriend or her husband. What is laughable is the way the police, courts and society view DV - and gay marriage. If Japan ever wants to be accepted as a world power, they need to get with the times. That means opening their minds to things like homosexuals, foreigners and equal rights for women. Until then, Japan will be known as the country that blew it economically, has crappy safety standards and has more "isms" and discrimination than thought possible.

  • -1

    oikawa

    Why doesn't he just Beat off! I mean err, shut up.

  • -4

    BPoint

    We are officially out of problems. How about focusing on some real issues. Gay marriage is not one of them.

  • 3

    Dragoncloud64

    Not possible. Animals and furniture cannot enter (nor do they have the capacity to) a social contract such as marriage since they do not have legal rights.

    Animals do have legal rights, just no legal rights for marraige...

  • 2

    Green Panda

    What about the animals? Well someday we'll marry robots,androids,cyborgs, etc. So I'm not against it. :)

  • 2

    Bluebris

    We are officially out of problems. How about focusing on some real issues. Gay marriage is not one of them.

    People being treated equally is not a real issue?

  • 5

    zichi

    Three times as many couples are wed by civil marriage only than those married involving religion, which has become much less important.

  • 1

    BurakuminDes

    Macpaul Emeka Ekwueme -

    PERVERSION is a choice too and losing some of the rights you enjoy in the society comes with that choice. If you wish to enjoy like the 'normal' people, then be normal.

    Bear in mind plenty of people find your background and skin colour "abnormal" too - rightly or wrongly. I would have though a black would show a bit more tolerance to other minority groups.

  • -4

    combinibento

    Animals do have legal rights, just no legal rights for marraige...

    Name one. Animals are, legally speaking, "personal property." That means, legally, they are no different than your lamp or carpet. I understand there are laws against cruelty to animals, but I don't see how that equates with "legal rights." There are laws against arson - does that mean my house has legal rights? And even if they did, they certainly have no right to contract.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    combinibento:

    Name one. Animals are, legally speaking, "personal property." That means, legally, they are no different than your lamp or carpet. I understand there are laws against cruelty to animals, but I don't see how that equates with "legal rights." There are laws against arson - does that mean my house has legal rights? And even if they did, they certainly have no right to contract.

    Er, actually some countries do have some animal rights laws. I'm sure that most people would object to needlessly torturing your pets. I'm pretty sure that torturing pets is actually illegal in most countries...

  • 0

    captainjohann

    At last a Japanese who has the guts to tell the truth and go against US President's views.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    ON TOPIC: Marrying an animal would probably be considered as a violation of animal rights.

    "Regarding the campaign to change the status of animals as property, the animal rights activists have seen success in several countries. In 1992, Switzerland amended its constitution to recognize animals as beings and not things. However, in 1999 the Swiss constitution was completely rewritten. A decade later, Germany guaranteed rights to animals in a 2002 amendment to its constitution, becoming the first European Union member to do so."

  • 1

    combinibento

    Thomas - thanks, but as I already indicated in my post I'm well aware of "cruelty to animals." And again, it has nothing to do with the discussion of whether animals have legal rights. I suggest you wiki "animal rights" - which explicitly states they have no rights and thus the movement of animal rights activists to change the status of animals from mere property to a more "same as people" type of status.

  • 7

    qazwsx

    Homophobic people always get hung up on the sex issue. Forget about the sex act, heterosexuals perform all types of sex acts too.

    Don't tell me everyone only performs missionary style vanilla sex. S&M, BDSM,anal, group-heterosexuals do these. Of course you may not, but some do, so we don't ban all heterosexuals marrying right?

    Some heterosexuals can't have children, don't wanna have children, we don't ban them right? Many heterosexuals have children in single parent families with no father or mother, we don't ban that right? So you may have a negative opinion of single parenting, interracial marriage, divorce, adoption, different religions etc but we don't ban those right?

    Let homosexuals have the same legal rights as every other HUMAN BEING- marriage, divorce, adoption, immigration, inheritance, medical treatment, etc etc

    You don't have to like it, just as you may not like a black man and white woman getting married (example- not my opinion), but you wouldn't try to make it illegal right? (if you would, then there is no getting through to you idiots)

    So give all humans equal rights, not special rights for some

  • 2

    anglootaku

    lol great thing about Japan that on tv it is NOT politically correct ^_^

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    combinibento: see my above post. In Germany at least, they do have legal rights.

  • 1

    anglootaku

    Tv in the west filters everything out and has a bias opinion on everything.. good to be more open and direct at times.. (in any topic, in general) and I am not referring to the trash on Fox news..

  • 3

    anglootaku

    I think Takeshi was saying it in a smug way and not in a serious tone.. unless anyone has a video clip on it?

  • 0

    tomoki

    He is being a bit sarcastic to be funny, but brings up the real concerns for the children raised by two men or women in the societies rampant with all kinds of prejudice especially among youth. Japanese would at least not be violent against them like some people in other countries such as ....?

  • 1

    tokyokawasaki

    Beat Takeshi compares same-sex marriage with bestiality

    Nothing wrong with same sex marriage. As long as the couple is happy, it has nothing to do with anyone else...

    For example, my ex wife was in love with her toy and mobile phone. As long as she is happy, who cares right?

  • 1

    tmarie

    Bura, you would think but actually it was minorities (specifically black and Hispanics) that opposed gay marriage in California. They tend to be more "Christians" than your average white folk. Shocking, isn't it. You'd think if anyone would have more tolerance it would be those that also face discrimination but sadly, that isn't true.

  • -3

    tmarie

    Tomoki, what's the problem if a child is raised by two moms or two days?! Better than the culture if just mom that is so rampant here, no?! Tanshinfunin and the like leaves much to be desired in terms of family mentality. Two parents that love the child - and have had to fight for their right to do so seems better than some muppets who marry because of a chick getting pregnant, no?

  • -6

    amida

    Let people marry who they want - for whatever reason.

    No, no, NO! Marriage would become meaningless if society followed your logic.

    Dogs can't become cats and gays can not get married.

    And this is not discrimination at all. Just like it isn't discrimination that I can not call myself a doctor since I am not a doctor.

  • 0

    pointofview

    As long as people are causing no harm to others they should be able to do what they want.

  • -3

    tmarie

    Amida, get with the times. Marriage stopped being important to many long ago. Plenty of people marry in Japan these days because of "accidents" and money. Many people marry for visas, peer pressure, to hide that they are gay... Yes, marriage is important but the idea that it for love and family went away a ling time ago. If anything, gays who want to marry are more respectful of the sanctity of marriage because they have to fight for it. Heterosexual? Damn, made a mistake now let's get divorced! Seems unimportant to them, no?

    And yes, it IS discrimination. Plain and simple.

    Dogs and cats?! You're comparing nature with man made rules. Apples and oranges. Open your eyes and get with the times.

  • -12

    Eric L Hanson

    Enough with all the falling over oneself on hyphenated "rights". The only meaningful rights are those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (of the US Constitution) and among these are freedom of expression. The age old societal institution of marriage requires consummation via compatible gender parts. A man laying with another is a lot of things, but the unfortunate sexual actions certainly don't consummate any sort of marriage.

    Whereas there are indeed humans disturbed enough to marry an animal, Beat's point is simply to serve as example of the extremes that might count as a logical next step in taking such an "anything goes" approach as the buffoon in the oval office "evolved" to now embrace.

    As a libertarian, I could care a less if some poor numb nuts wants to have his way with a horse. Just do not expect me to address her as Mrs. Numbnuts when the same chap puts lipstick on her and rides her into town.

    People can certainly "do what they want", but getting me to do what they want in recognizing as a married couple whatever absurd pairing is where I will draw the line, and especially at the retraining mind rot that would necessarily be delivered to our children to prop up the fantastic nipple twist on an essential and age old societal value of actual (unhyphenated) marriage.

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    If it was said by a politician I could see what all the fuss was about, but it was said by an actor/comedian/director on a panel show. He is always coming out with stuff like this on other subjects.

    He is one man, and this is his opinion. Who cares?

  • -5

    Eric L Hanson

    @tmarie... much of Japan's present Constitution is derived from the best case preservation of individual liberty exemplified in the Bill of Rights. There is no expiration date on inalienable rights missy. And totalitarianism is only fun for some for a short while.

  • 5

    Ivan Coughanoffalot

    This is a bloke who believes putting on a bad wig and carrying a squeaky hammer is comedy gold. I wouldn't lose too much sleep about whatever other opinions he might have.

    Kitano, whose yakuza gangster films are popular around the world,

    Not quite as popular as they'd have you believe around these parts. I've never met one in a thousand people who doesn't live here have the first notion of who this infantile dolt is.

  • -4

    Thunderbird2

    Didn't Takeshi play a gay gangster in "Boiling Point"? Just seems a bit odd that on the one hand he would play a part like that and then later on have a pop at gay people.

    I think this was for publicity purposes and people shouldn't get bent out of shape about it.

    Oh and I agree with Eric: I wish people would stop forcing their Western Christian sensibilities onto a Buddhist culture.

  • 1

    HansNFranz

    I had people mention to me that Kitano Takeshi is considered an intellectual in Japan. A comedian yes, but also an intellectual. I have yet to hear a statement from him that would support that notion. I also don't find him funny, but that's just my taste in comedians I guess.

  • -3

    Eric L Hanson

    @Thunderbird2... Buddhist culture? I know a bit about Buddhism, I was not aware that "gay marriage" was among the teachings. Perhaps you can share... I was honestly looking for any examples in all of the world's history and hadn't found anything so silly, not even from the Greeks! And by the way, understanding how marriage works is not any form of "pop at gay people" Bub.

  • -3

    Eric L Hanson

    @Thunderbird2... and the culture of Japan is better described as a blend of Buddhist and Shinto... and the Shinto did not promote "gay marriage" either (unless you have something to share indicating greater wisdom on that topic)

  • 5

    zichi

    Eric L Hanson

    Buddhist culture? I know a bit about Buddhism, I was not aware that "gay marriage" was among the teachings.

    There is nothing in the Buddhist teaching about GAY marriage but there again, there's nothing in Buddhism about hetrosexual marriage.

  • 4

    ukguyjp

    Kitano may be a comedian but this is no laughing matter. As a Japanese celebrity with a huge public profile, and especially as someone in the entertainment industry, he should know better. All my Kitano DVDs are now in the trash. He can go XXXX himself.

  • -5

    Eric L Hanson

    @zichi... there is no historical example in any Buddhist culture of anything but the non-hyphenated version of actual marriage of a man to one or more brides, all consummated via compatible gender parts.

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    I never said anything about promoting gay marriage - I don't approve of it. I must have misread your deleted post.. apologies for making an arse of it.

  • -4

    Skull Joke

    This guy is an idiot. I like a lot of his movies but as a person i don't like the guy. He should open his eyes a bit more. But then again he's apart of the older generation.

  • 0

    tmarie

    I wish people would stop forcing their Western Christian sensibilities onto a Buddhist culture.

    Um, yes, but gay marriage is oh so christian... Was that a joke??

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    Okay... I'll repeat again what I said about:
    I wish people would stop forcing their Western Christian sensibilities onto a Buddhist culture.

    It was a response to a deleted comment by someone else. It had NOTHING to do with gay marriage, and everything to do with a comment about global westernisation. Now will people please stop having a go?
    It isn't my fault if my post now relates to a missing comment! It is no longer seen in context.

  • -2

    tmarie

    **Do you really embrace all of modern culture? **

    When is comes to equality, yes. Shame you and others don't.

  • -6

    Eric L Hanson

    @tmarie... actual rights already ARE equal!

  • -2

    yasukuni

    "All my Kitano DVDs are now in the trash. He can go XXXX himself." " I will now rethink my love all those beat takeshi films" " I won't watch anything with Beat from now on unless he retracts this thinking."

    Here we go....

    "Yep, me being with my girlfriend and loving her and wanting to marry her more than anything... is JUST LIKE raping a dog. Yep, logic!"

    So ...this is standard lesbian logical argument? Lovely choice of words and fascinating line of thought there.

    Amazing. Beat Takeshi makes one comment and the gay attack hounds are let loose... DVD burning, boycotts, and raping dog comments. I think he needs to hit some people over the head with that plastic hammer of his.

  • -4

    yasukuni

    "Amida, get with the times. Marriage stopped being important to many long ago. "

    Obviously not for the people who are raging and burning their DVDs and spitting into their keyboards right now ...

  • 0

    yasukuni

    All these comments about Kitano saying this for publicity, to be sarcastic, that he wasn't serious are silly.

    He's just saying what most Japanese would say. And what a lot of Americans would say but they're too scared now of the raging, hostile attack that will come their way.

  • 1

    Hybrid4

    @tmarie

    Bura, you would think but actually it was minorities (specifically black and Hispanics) that opposed gay marriage in California. They tend to be more "Christians" than your average white folk. Shocking, isn't it. You'd think if anyone would have more tolerance it would be those that also face discrimination but sadly, that isn't true.

    So, "Christian" is a bad word nowadays? They are the easy target, aren't they. I'm wondering if you would be as easily and openly critical about another religion (guessed which one?)...

    Your comment just shows how you think in terms of minority vs. majority. That is very limiting in my opinion.

  • -1

    tmarie

    @tmarie... actual rights already ARE equal!

    Interesting, the last time I checked, they weren't. One rule for one group, another for a different.

    **So, "Christian" is a bad word nowadays? They are the easy target, aren't they. I'm wondering if you would be as easily and openly critical about another religion (guessed which one?)...

    Your comment just shows how you think in terms of minority vs. majority. That is very limiting in my opinion.**

    I'm sorry, could you please quote me as to where I said that? I can't find it. Perhaps you can?

    You're complaining that Christians are easy targets? You do get that we're talking about gay rights here and trying to claim that Christians are an easy target in this discussion is laughable.

    How exactly do I think in terms of minority and majority? Please, tell me as I am dying to know what it is you think I think with regards to it.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    "You'd think if anyone would have more tolerance it would be those that also face discrimination"

    Yes you would. So maybe they and most people see this issue completely differently to racism.

  • 0

    Jasta11

    What if a bisexual truly loves a man and a woman equally. Why do you arrogantly force him to choose? Why does society deny the bisexual that right simply because they are different to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    Now if you can ask those questions seriously instead of rhetorically, you might get it. Why indeed? Why are we not free to do these things if all parties involved agree? Why is freedom so offensive to some?

    Its interesting to realize that no time in history has failed to have some group widely condemned and despised, with no amount of bile being too great to heap on them. There were witches, many of whom are now accepted as Wiccans. There were pinkos who are now our socialist allies. There were blacks who are now some of our most popular and respected musicians and actors, or any profession, including an American president who is half black. There were gays, and now, you can't say anything against them or you get attacked. You can't just go out and beat them up anymore. You can't blame all sexual evil on them anymore. You can't accuse them of destroying the fabric of society anymore. Nope. Their turn is over and its not coming back. Now its somebody else's turn, right up until we find someone else to kick around. Get with the times! Popularity certainly seems to be the only consistent reason to kick someone around, and its no longer popular to kick gays around.

  • 0

    oikawa

    Yasukuni and others - marriage doesn't have to be between 2 people. It's an entirely man-made construct so it can be whatever we want it to be. Of course, there are good, logical and considered reasons why we don't want it to be between more than 2 people but it could be if we wanted it to be, and indeed in some religions it is. However most people don't see any good, logical, considered reasons why 2 people of the same sex shouldn't also be "married". If you can give any please do, but please nobody say that there is a slippery slope to be gone down, as marriage is entirely a construct of our own making. It's like saying if you let your child watch a cartoon you have to let them watch porn, because they're both TV. No, because one is considered appropriate and the other isn't. It's a value judgment of course, but everything in life is. Hopefully, however, based on genuine, considered thinking, not emotional reactionism.

  • 0

    Avalon57

    Dear "Beat": Let me break it down for you, since you are apparently too stupid to understand. Two human beings are two human beings. A human being and an animal are a human being and an animal. What part of that don't you understand? (Oh, that's right; you're stupid to understand... as such, why don't you learn something before you open your stupid mouth?)

    You do not have to like gay people, you do not have to have anything to do with gay people. No one is asking you to. But, if two adults want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, a commitment that is protected under the laws of the country they live in, and if those two adults do their bit (i.e. work, pay their taxes, contribute to society, be kind to children, animals and the elderly)... then, really, "Beat," what's it to you whether their sum private parts are male or female? Why the eff do you care?

    And... set me straight, Beatster... why is there a persistent rumor about you being gay? I'm not making that up. Ask around, honey. 'Cause that's the word I've heard on the street.

  • 0

    yasukuni

    "marriage doesn't have to be between 2 people. It's an entirely man-made construct so it can be whatever we want it to be."

    Agreed.

    "However most people don't see any good, logical, considered reasons why 2 people of the same sex shouldn't also be "married".

    That, is simply not true.

  • -1

    garomakaikishi

    whats wrong with u people he is right!. whats next? marriage to robots, blow up dolls?

  • 2

    bokuwamo

    It is pretty simple. Some people today want to try and make other people think that something that is abnormal be viewed as being normal. Sex between 2 of the same sex is abnormal. Wanting people to agree that sex between 2 of the same sex is normal is what the main issue is. Well again it is not normal and the people who want the rest of us to say it is are trying push their ideas into main stream society, all over the world. Good luck with that.

    The natural reproduction process is meant for a male and female. Human beings came to use religions and laws to bring the marriage of man and woman into the world. It's intent, marriage was meant and still is for many reasons some are to give a surname to children of the marriage, to be viewed by God as a holy marriage and to keep the relationship legal under the laws. Just to mention a couple.

    Why should anything abnormal become legal? Make gay marriage legal and than what is next? Has society lowered it's standards far too much already?

    Stop pushing on me and the rest of the people who think like me the idea that being gay is normal and I should be viewed as not a well adjusted human being because I don't think so.

  • 3

    NeoJamal

    One's despise of a relationship or act does not mean that he does not tolerate it. Takeshi's comparison of gay marriage with bestiality is hardly rhetoric, it's a metaphorical expression of personal feeling: disgust. It's a bit far fetched to say he is intolerant, he is an artist after all.

  • 0

    oikawa

    Please give the reasons then. And I would stake my life on the fact that most people would not be against it. The ones who are are vehemently opposed speak out, but judging by the proportions for and against on this thread, let alone compared to everyone who hasn't bothered to say anything because they don't care, I think it's true to say most people don't care either way. Anyway, please give some considered logical reasons why gay marriage should not be "allowed".

  • -2

    buggerlugs

    So long as its between 2 consenting adults why should it be anyone else's business. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural. It has been proven in animals and is evident in humans. To those who say "what if you child was gay? You just be pretending to accept him/her" Well I can tell you that my love is unconditional and if one or all of my kids came to me and said "this is the person I love" I wouldn't care if it was same sex or not. I would care if the person was a muppet though. Some of my best friends are heterosexual and others are homosexual. There's no difference to me when I see the loving couples around me they're all happy.

    It made me proud of my chOice to support Obama when he spoke out for gay marriage. Good on you obama, takeshi you sickened me.

  • -1

    almostshat

    In spite of what he said, I still think Beat is quite cute and sexy. If he changes his mind, in the immortal words of Mr Humphries, "I'm free!" Come out of the closet, big boy...

  • -3

    DentShop

    If you don't follow any law of any country, then you'll leave yourself open to prosecution.

    zichi, So you weren't able to answer my question? Dont worry, nobody I have spoken to is able to either.

    They too just go around in circles hoping that by saying a whole lot of politically correct rhetoric will make them seem credible.

    But my quest for truth must go on!

  • -2

    Bluebris

    Beat's point is simply to serve** as example of the extremes that might count as a logical next step** in taking such an "anything goes" approach as the buffoon in the oval office "evolved" to now embrace.

    Except that it has no logic. It is a logical fallacy. I don't really think that counts as logic.

  • -3

    Bluebris

    @Dentshop You want to know why discriminating against other people is wrong?

  • 1

    seesaw1

    Say what you like, I still believe that marriage and sexual relationship should be between a man and a woman.

  • 0

    HansNFranz

    In any other country, Kitano would be just another bitter old loser. In Japan, he can have a big career. Huh.

  • -6

    DentShop

    You want to know why discriminating against other people is wrong?

    Yes! Yes! Dont repeat the question! That doesnt help anyone! I want a logical, straight-forward answer that doesnt involve name-calling or self-flattery.

  • 1

    bluesea67

    I thought the old fart was gay

  • -1

    CapnSinbad

    This just shows what an empty suit Beat is. Why he is considered a genius anywhere is a true mystery. Even having been here 26 years I've never had even a micro-moment where I considered him nothing other than a cheap chimpira.

  • 2

    Rolf Schlumpf

    Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion... So everyone's opinion is okay.

  • 2

    Open Minded

    DentShop: Your arguments against anti-discrimination laws are just unsustainable. And none will not argue with you the same as if you would say that the earth is flat or that the sun turn around the earth.

  • 1

    yabits

    Yes! Yes! Dont repeat the question! That doesnt help anyone! I want a logical, straight-forward answer that doesnt involve name-calling or self-flattery. [Why is discrimination wrong?]

    Discrimination itself may be wrong, right, or totally indifferent depending on the situation.

    A question like "Why is it wrong to discriminate against people who are applying for a job solely on the basis of the color of their skin?" is much more straightforward. And do you really need someone to explain you why that type of discrimination is wrong?

    Treat people equally then - including those who who discriminate.

    It's a bit like saying treat people equally - including those who commit felonies. (If the discrimination is of a type that a majority of people have determined results in treating people unequally and therefore have prohibited by law.)

  • -3

    DentShop

    If the discrimination is of a type that a majority of people have determined results in treating people unequally and therefore have prohibited by law.

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    It's a bit like saying treat people equally - including those who commit felonies.

    So discrimination is as bad as burglary or assault? You are going to have to do better than that.

  • 0

    yabits

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    I guess you don't understand that a group of people can discuss and come to an agreement that something is wrong.

  • 0

    almostshat

    Wow this gay stuff has really got the JT goat. The phrase "get a life" springs to mind? Back to the fridge for another can...

  • 1

    yabits

    So discrimination is as bad as burglary or assault?

    On the spectrum of moral and ethical behavior, certain kinds of discrimination have been determined to be weighted towards the "bad" side (along with other misdeeds and crimes), and therefore rules have been made to discourage or prohibit it. Where on the side it falls relative to other unethical or immoral conduct is irrelevant.

    In your personal set of values, such discrimination -- viewed by most as immoral or unethical -- may be perfectly OK.

  • -5

    DentShop

    a group of people can discuss

    Nothing is being discussed with me. Just judged.

    certain kinds of discrimination have been determined to be weighted towards the "bad" side

    Name one. We can discuss it.

  • 4

    Open Minded

    DentShop: many posters tried to explained you the universally recognized rationale of tolerance and Human Rights. Then if you do not adhere to this and believe that there are people/classes above others, any further discussion is pointless.

  • 2

    serendipitous

    Dentshop

    People shouldn't be allowed to discriminate because we have slowly evolved over the past few tens of thousands of years and have become a bit smarter. So smart that we have learned that our natural instinct to discriminate against others who are different, for whatever reason, is actually wrong. And we are slowly learning that even though we might think we are better or more superior than others, we actually aren't. The ones who don't realize this and can't handle the idea tend to be the ones who discriminate against others. Simple really.

  • -6

    DentShop

    many posters tried to explained you the universally recognized rationale of tolerance and Human Rights

    No they havent. Not one poster - including you.

    All I have read is - some people think it is wrong Thats fine, think what you want. I am not interested that people think it is wrong. What I am interested in is...

    Why is it wrong?

  • -1

    Jasta11

    So why is it illegal? Arent these nations the lands of the free? Shouldnt people be allowed to discriminate if they want?

    DentShop, there is no such thing as 100 percent freedom for all. We are lucky if we can achieve 80 percent freedom for all. The basic rule is, though not always adhered to, that you are free to do anything that does not infringe upon the freedom of others. If you allow people to infringe on the freedom of others, then the percentage of freedom for all necessarily falls. Of course the highest percentage of freedom possible is what freedom loving people want.

    Gay marriage does not infringe on the freedom of others, except in the sense of their freedom to infringe on the freedom of others, a freedom I have just explained is not allowed because it lowers the freedom quotient. Anyone who wants that freedom should go live on a pirate ship rather than in a country with rules.

    That said, some forms of discrimination are allowed and some aren't, and some kinds are acceptable and some aren't. Laws that infringe on freedoms that don't infringe on other freedoms are not acceptable. But if you choose not to invite gays to your private tea party, that is acceptable, even if it is narrow-minded and pathetic.

  • -3

    DentShop

    Gay marriage does not infringe on the freedom of others

    So if a gay couple went to a Muslim Imam, Catholic priest or Jewish Rabbi, demanding to be married by one of them, shouldnt the clergymen be allowed to say no? In effect, discriminating against them?

    For what, in their eyes (not mine) is an abomination and a humiliation against what they believe.

    If any of these people of religion was forced, against their will and teachings to marry a gay couple, that wouldnt infringe on their freedom?

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    DentShop:

    So if a gay couple went to a Muslim Imam, Catholic priest or Jewish Rabbi, demanding to be married by one of them, shouldnt the clergymen be allowed to say no? In effect, discriminating against them? For what, in their eyes (not mine) is an abomination and a humiliation against what they believe. If any of these people of religion was forced, against their will and teachings to marry a gay couple, that wouldnt infringe on their freedom?

    How is that any different than the KKK saying that you can only marry whites?

  • 0

    Giulio Ricci

    Just two things I'd like to say: 1. every person has the right to say their own opinion right? (so both those in favour or not must not tell the other they are right). 2. have i got it wrong? God made Adam and Eve? Our very existence whether we believe in creation or evolution...I ask? why do we have both men and women existing on this planet, the bible clearly says God created both man and woman or has evolution determined that only men will exist; it reminds me of the problems they are now facing in China where there are more males than females and now there is a demographic and social inbalance...

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    bokuwamo:

    It is pretty simple. Some people today want to try and make other people think that something that is abnormal be viewed as being normal. Sex between 2 of the same sex is abnormal. Wanting people to agree that sex between 2 of the same sex is normal is what the main issue is. Well again it is not normal and the people who want the rest of us to say it is are trying push their ideas into main stream society, all over the world. Good luck with that.

    Sigh, here goes again with the typical "normal" argument (appeal to nature and appeal to popularity), which is a logical fallacy. Just because something is "normal" or "natural" doesn't mean that it's right and correct or we should continue doing what is considered "natural". After all, using a computer or driving a car is far from "normal" or "natural", so why you don't you stop using that artificial abomination called a computer? Using the Internet in the 80's would have been considered highly "abnormal", which would mean that had it not been for the "abnormal" types who were using the Internet in the 80's, the Internet would never have taken off.

    Just because something is mainstream, doesn't mean that it's right, which is something that you don't seem to understand.

  • -5

    HokoOnchi

    He's entitle to his personal opinion. But in private.

  • 0

    YuriyChekalin

    He's entitle to his personal opinion. But in private.

    So, what should he do when somebody asks him a question? Check with you first?

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Giulio Ricci:

    God made Adam and Eve? Our very existence whether we believe in creation or evolution...I ask? why do we have both men and women existing on this planet, the bible clearly says God created both man and woman or has evolution determined that only men will exist; it reminds me of the problems they are now facing in China where there are more males than females and now there is a demographic and social inbalance...

    Well first of all not everyone follows Christianity... and second, the overpopulation problem in China would have actually been curbed by homosexuality. But the Chinese government had to bring in an artificial law to control their population, which is why there are more males than females.

  • -1

    HokoOnchi

    >

    YuriyChekalinMay. 19, 2012 - 02:55AM JST

    He's entitle to his personal opinion. But in private.
    

    So, what should he do when somebody asks him a question? Check with you first?

    Your question has nothing to do with my comment. What Beat thinks about homosexuals is his business and his right, what he says in public, on the other hand, should be tempered by the position he holds as a public figure. Maybe he can't cut it in that regard.

  • 4

    Molenir

    Your question has nothing to do with my comment. What Beat thinks about homosexuals is his business and his right, what he says in public, on the other hand, should be tempered by the position he holds as a public figure. Maybe he can't cut it in that regard.

    So what you're saying is, if he doesn't have the 'proper' position, he should not have the right to speak?

  • 0

    YuriyChekalin

    What Beat thinks about homosexuals is his business and his right, what he says in public, on the other hand, should be tempered by the position he holds as a public figure.

    He obviously was asked about his personal opinion. He stated his personal opinion. Should he have lied about his personal opinion just to make some gaijin from JT board happy? I personally do not think so.

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    YuriyChekalin:

    He obviously was asked about his personal opinion. He stated his personal opinion. Should he have lied about his personal opinion just to make some gaijin from JT board happy? I personally do not think so.

    Well you see it wasn't an opinion, he was saying that Obama would eventually allow people to marry animals, which is clearly impossible as animals can't give consent.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    Well actually even if it's just his opinion, as a semi-public figure/celebrity, don't you think that it's a little irresponsible to compare gay marriage to bestiality? That's why you should RESTRAIN your opinions that may be harmful to others.

  • 0

    Vera Newman

    People who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, or rights, or equality, or sex or gay anything seem to spend a lot of time imagining some kind of bizarro future where all sorts of horrifying terrible things COULD happen, blithely ignoring the horrifying, terrible things that ARE ACTUALLY happening now to the people whose lives and happiness they consider inferior to their own. You either believe in equality, or you don't ,and so believe in discrimination. Get over your fear of other people's bedrooms, love and marriage are about a whole lot more than that, as any human being who wasn't raised in a sealed box should know.

  • -5

    Jake Momo Pfister

    Takeshi is actually a man. I hope he does not bow to the homosexuals. Homosexuals waste oxygen and serve no purpose to the continuation of our species. This behavior should not be accepted. We dont wear shoes on our hands because that isnt what its made for. Same for human body parts, male genitals and female genitals are made for each other. male + male or female + female is only for their own psychological gain. If someone has an opinion on gays everyone bashes them and hates them. When gays say something and are ignored they start talking about freedom etc.,,,,,,,,,,,, NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 0

    OMGhontoni

    People are saying he is just trying to get a laugh - but I am honestly not seeing the joke.

    “Obama supports gay marriage. You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then,” Kitano said after being shown footage of people celebrating the U.S. president’s comments

    Seriously. Where is the funny bit? I am not trying to be sarcastic, rude, obtuse, anything. I just genuinely dont see where the joke is. Can someone explain what I am missing??!

  • -1

    michaelfolu

    I am in total support of kitano ,it's unthinkable for me and all right thinking people all over world to see people of same sex getting married to each other ,even animals dont do it . Animals of same sex never get married to each other ,how much more human being who can think . Obama is such an idiot, just for political office ,he went ahead to destory his family name . I do not have respect or support for obama anymore , he has violated God's law on marriage . What a shame for a black president of america ,America( united states ) a sinful nation .

  • 0

    Vera Newman

    And is anyone else tired of the cowardly downwardly spiraling circular argument about the outrageousness of being shunned by the people who are offended by something said (either purposefully or in ignorance)that shuns and offends them, like it is a bigger crime to be hated for hating someone than it is to just hate. Arguments and discussion aren't based on the brute weightlifting of emotional conviction, everyone is entitled to feel or say however strongly they care to hold their opinion. The challenge is to find, acknowledge and act upon the flaws in our OWN perceptions of the world, because society is a cooperative undertaking. And like it or not there are,have always been and always will be homosexuals in society just the same as straight men who have multiple wives, cheat on their partners or don't and unless you have a magical archeological crystal ball that can answer why that is please try and use the amazing brain we have all received to analyze facts and differentiate between them and the instinctive, animalistic, reflexive reactions (Gay-AAAGH!!!) we experience as one species living together on a planet we must share. Arrogance derived from self-held beliefs of superiority is proof of nothing. The fact remains that we are queer, we are here and we are as human as any other human ever was, and that we are entitled to be treated as equals, because we ARE equals. What is the argument that we are not? Why are we lesser than you, why are our children lesser than yours, why are our feelings, hopes, loves and lives BY DEFINITION, by law, by your whim, at your mercy less than yours? Who are YOU?

  • 2

    okitokidoki

    Re Male-Male erotic relationships in traditional Japanese society, less informed readers of this forum might benefit from searching Ihara(井原 西鶴?, 1642 – September 9, 1693) and Comrade Loves Of the Samurai, a collection of Ihara's stories dealing with the topic, or The Great Mirror of Male Love (The Encyclopedia of Male Love) (男色大鑑 1687)

  • 1

    Erik Lars

    @kurisupisu

    Anal sex is part of a homosexual lifestyle.

    And how about lesbians?

  • 1

    Erik Lars

    @Schopenhauer

    We cannot expect a baby from the same sex marriage.

    1) Not everyone's purpose for life is to have children. 2) Some "conventional" married couples can't have children.

    Wise up.

  • 0

    Maitake

    wouldn't waste my time worrying about anything he said.

  • 0

    zichi

    I have learnt over my many decades that the GAY bashers are the kind of people who don't just stop there and would oppose many aspects of equality and equal opportunities. They oppose many personal freedoms and avocate restrictions on personal choice. Often, GAY bashers are the bible brigade, and I have a problem with them too, trying to force their religion on others.

    Discrimination for whatever reason is not acceptable. In European countries and America, homosexuality for men and women is legal. At least in Europe most countries have introduced GAY marriage or Civil Union, but that remains a major problem in America. Only about six States allow GAY marriage and 39 States have banned it. The Federal Law does not recognise it.

    I don't have a problem with Takeshi disliking homosexuality or GAY marriage but I do have a problem with the way or the words he used to express his opinions.

    I also don't accept those comments on this forum which use twisted logic to oppose homosexuality.

    If homosexuality is legal then they should be able enjoy the same freedoms that all citizens have. I don't understand the need to ban or prevent GAY marriage or Civil Union.

    The institution of marriage has mostly failed. I know many hetrosexual couples, who have lived together for decades, had children but never married. There was a time not so long ago when those children would have been subject to name calling.

  • 3

    Wolfpack

    Takeshi believes what he believes. I think he shows a concern for the degradation of marriage and it's position in society.

    @Vera Newman

    The fact remains that we are queer, we are here and we are as human as any other human ever was, and that we are entitled to be treated as equals, because we ARE equals.

    I wish just once that those people in the gay community that are pushing so hard for gay marriage as an affirmation of their lives would stop and consider the other side of the issue. Most of the people in the world are heterosexual and have completely different ideas of how to construct a functional society. We know there are gay people in the world - that you are "here and queer." We could care less about what you do in your bedroom and with whom. Please, please leave us out of it.

    I believe you should be treated with respect in society, in the workplace, and by the government. But the government has nothing to do with your sex life. Furthermore, there are many people that just think same sex intimacy is disgusting. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is. Gaining the right to be married will not change that. Every one of those heterosexual people that you think are your friends feel the same way. They will not admit it to your face but it's a fact. Otherwise they would at least be bisexual. It's nothing personal - it is what it is.

    I do not support the idea of gay marriage because it associates my marriage with something I do not consider to be anywhere close to being the same. It's like asking the National Organization for Women to allow a bunch of polygamists from Utah to join their organization. It's oil and water. It will not work for gays and it will not work for those who believe in traditional marriage. It makes us all worse off. More importantly, it makes society worse off. Traditional marriage has many benefits for society, especially for children. Degrading it further makes us all worse off. Just look at the past 50 years in America. The decline of traditional marriage has been a disaster for the society.

    At his point, I no longer believe that the government should be in the business of saying who should or should not be married. If it were up to me I would have all levels of government no longer refer to the word "marriage" but just call it a something like "a domestic contract". It would be open to any two or more people to enter into and have the same rights and priviledges reserved for those previously known as "married." This is the problem with government sticking it's nose into the personal business of it's people. There would be no issue over gay marriage if the government wasn't involved in the first place. Join a gay friendly church and get gay-married. Whatever makes you happy. Then I can join a church and we will use a different word that describes what a traditional marriage used to be. You are happy, I am happy. Problem solved.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    There is no logical, rational or moral reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. And I doubt that people would disagree with same-sex marriage over time. It just makes sense to defend and honor our human rights more than deny them.

    Most countries in EU/Europe recognize same-sex union, while 6 recognize same-sex marriage. Outside of Europe, Canada, Argentina and South Africa recognize same-sex marriage. 6 states in USA recognize same-sex marriage. It's time to move forward to the 21st century where there are universal human rights for all and where everyone has the right to pursue happiness, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR LIFESTYLE.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Wolfpack:

    I think he shows a concern for the degradation of marriage and it's position in society.

    If he thinks same-sex marriage "degrades" marriage then frankly I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm sure that the KKK thinks that inter-racial marriage "degrades" the marriage as well, but that's not going stop people from having inter-racial marriages. People have the right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that other people should have less freedom because of their opinion.

    Most of the people in the world are heterosexual and have completely different ideas of how to construct a functional society.

    Depends on what you mean by "most people". In Europe, most people support same-sex marriage or union.

    I do not support the idea of gay marriage because it associates my marriage with something I do not consider to be anywhere close to being the same.

    You don't even have to AGREE with it to accept it. I don't agree with religion, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ban religion. It's called the freedom to pursue happiness. Everybody has the right to pursue their happiness in any way that they wish as long as it does not harm themselves or others.

    More importantly, it makes society worse off. Traditional marriage has many benefits for society, especially for children.

    There is absolutely NO evidence for this. If you have any evidence, then I would like to see you present it. There is no evidence that same-sex marriage somehow "degrades" society, whatever that means. I guess all the countries, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, etc that have legalized same-sex marriage, are crumbling down into degradation and decadence. Not.

    Just look at the past 50 years in America. The decline of traditional marriage has been a disaster for the society.

    Correlation does NOT equal causation. Please learn how to make a proper argument. You are oversimplifying something that is arguable very complex.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    As I have suspected, the only case being made against same-sex marriage basically boils down to appeal to tradition - "It's against the tradition" "I don't feel comfortable with it" "It's not what we've been used to doing". These are no real, legitimate arguments to ban same-sex marriage.

  • -2

    Akemi Mokoto

    This guy is an idiot. Plain and simple.

  • 0

    OMGhontoni

    Furthermore, there are many people that just think same sex intimacy is disgusting. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is. Gaining the right to be married will not change that

    Every one of those heterosexual people that you think are your friends feel the same way. They will not admit it to your face but it's a fact. Otherwise they would at least be bisexual. It's nothing personal - it is what it is.

    Absolute rubbish. Sorry. I have several gay and bi friends. I am not bi myself simply because I dont fancy women. Not because I think they are disgusting or that same-sex relationships are immoral or wrong in any way - I simply dont fancy women. Sometimes after yet another bad relationship had ended I wished I did!!! i dont think about how, when and why they have sex any more than I think about how my heterosexual friends have sex - it is none of my business.

    YOU may think it is disgusting - feel free to go ahead and think that. But dont lump us all into the same group.

  • 4

    state broken people

    “Obama supports gay marriage. You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then,” Kitano said after being shown footage of people celebrating the U.S. president’s comments.

    what i take away from that statement is that kitano does not 'hate' gay people so much as he merely sees a slippery slope.

  • 0

    serendipitous

    Marriage isn't only about reproducing or "matching body parts". There are many heterosexual couples who almost never have sex anyway. There are many who marry in their fifties and can't physically give birth as well. Marriage is about two people who want to be together and, hopefully, love each other. Just because some heterosexuals can't understand how two men or two women could love each other and want to be "married", doesn't mean it is wrong and it certainly doesn't mean they have any right to criticize. Isn't marriage just a confirmation on paper officially recognizing that two people want to be together. Religion has nothing to do with it so please leave those fictional religious books out of it. They only cause more problems. Also, it is known that there are quite a few species that engage in same-sex activities (solely for enjoyment and obviously not for reproduction), not only humans. Get over it.

  • -1

    tmarie

    He's entitle to his personal opinion. But in private.

    No, I disagree. He's entitled to his opinion (Dent and/or Beat) but he just can't expect that everyone is going to agree with them or play along in the argument about why discriminating people is just wrong.

    We cannot expect a baby from the same sex marriage. And many straight women and men are unable to have kids for various reasons. Should we not allow them to marry? Should we discriminate against them? (Actually, they ARE discriminated against by some member of society for not reproducing but another time, another thread).

    Isn't the whole Christian thing "Do unto others as you"ll have them to do you"? It is exactly this type of hypocrisy that makes me dislike any sort of organized religion and groups. Yeah, we'll respect you, love you and forgive but ONLY if you play by our rules and thinking. Crap really. I don't question why people have their beliefs but I certainly won't agree with them and won't think too highly of them if their beliefs means treating others as less than equal. Why in 2012 we even have to discuss this is sad.

    As many of us are foreigners on here, have been discriminated by the locals, the government... you'd think that people could understand why discrimination isn't a good thing for society. JT is always full of shocking surprises.

    As for "should we allow polygamy" and whatnot, why not? If the people are consenting adults, I don't care who marries who. Why would anyone care what people do in the privacy of their own homes and lives as long as they aren't hurting anyone? And don't give me crap about family values as they are lacking all over the world these days - not that I think they ever really existed anyone.

  • -1

    zichi

    More Europeans support GAY marriage or Civil Union than those in America who oppose it. What makes Americans so afraid of this issue? I have always thought that too many are hung up on communism and homosexuality.

  • -1

    tmarie

    Zichi, I think it is the religion issue for many. Americans, compared to Canadians and Europeans still have their faith in God in larger numbers than we do.

  • -3

    zichi

    GAY american's are just like other americans, They work, they pay taxes, in fact many GAYS working in the entertainment industry are paying big taxes. Some work has doctors or firemen saving lives, others are in the military serving their country, some have died for their country.

    Why shouldn't GAY american's enjoy the freedoms and choices that other americans have?

    @tmarie

    Yes I understand that hang-up thing with religion but I guess too, some States are more religious than others.

  • -1

    showmethemoney

    I have learnt over my many decades that the GAY bashers are the kind of people who don't just stop there and would oppose many aspects of equality and equal opportunities. They oppose many personal freedoms and avocate restrictions on personal choice.

    Great words and a great post zichi. But gay bashers are more diverse than that. There are also the gays trying to hide behind the plausible deniability of being a gay basher. Think Senator Craig. There are also those just having a laugh at causing others pain, and find the topic an easy opportunity. But however you slice them, you only get the evil and the dumb.

  • -1

    showmethemoney

    So if a gay couple went to a Muslim Imam, Catholic priest or Jewish Rabbi, demanding to be married by one of them, shouldnt the clergymen be allowed to say no? In effect, discriminating against them?

    Dentshop, clergyman have always had the right to refuse anyone they like. White me and my Asian fiancee were turned down at several churches. They said it was because were not members of the church. But was it acutally racial discrimination? I don't know. How could I? It does not matter anyway. Its their religion and its their church.

    If any of these people of religion was forced, against their will and teachings to marry a gay couple, that wouldnt infringe on their freedom?

    No one ever suggested anyone be forced to perform weddings for anybody ever. Where do you get these ideas?

  • 0

    DentShop

    Where do you get these ideas?

    If the church refused to marry a gay couple because they were gay, wouldnt that be discrimination in the classical sense of the word?

  • 1

    zichi

    DentShop

    If the church refused to marry a gay couple because they were gay, wouldnt that be discrimination in the classical sense of the word?

    Firstly, church wedding are not legal marriages and require a marriage license. Secondly, GAYS would have to have the legal right to marriage which is only available in 6 States. Thirdly, if a church refuses to wed any couple because one or both of them are from a minority it would be a form of discrmination, just not a legal one. A rabbi would not marry a Catholic couple. An Iman would not marry a Jewish couple. Churches refuse to marry for many reasons including in one or both of them are divorced.

    You are just arguing for argument's sake,without addressing the real issues.

  • -3

    zichi

    If GAY'S are "good enough" to serve and die for their country, they are also "good enough" to be able to have legal marriage.

    America has a very long road of discrimation and one would hope that in the very near future it will catch up with the likes of Europe and Canada on these issues.

  • 1

    DentShop

    You are just arguing for argument's sake

    Not arguing. Simply asked a question.

  • 0

    tmarie

    If the church refused to marry a gay couple because they were gay, wouldnt that be discrimination in the classical sense of the word? Indeed it would be but as Zichi pointed out, they aren't legal. For many years the Catholic church refused to allow divorced people to remarry in their church (my mom being one of them), they didn't allow non-Catholics to marry in their church (my cousin)... Numbers dropped in North American and they changed their mind. Why? People were fed up with the discrimination. If churches want to discriminate, as they do, they can. It just means more people will turn their back on said churches.

  • 2

    Molenir

    There is no logical, rational or moral reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.

    So, despite the logical, rational, and moral reasons why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, you have decided that these don't really exist. Out of curiosity, did you stare at the sun a bit too long as a child, have trouble seeing, partial blindness? Just wondering.

  • 0

    johninnaha

    Well, the purpose of marriage is procreation. Marriage being the union of man and woman. The whole idea is to make a family. It's set up that way.

    However you cut it, two guys or two ladies just cannot produce offspring and start a family.

    They can borrow the product of a man and a woman, but they can't actually produce a baby themselves.

    Is isn't very complicated.

    Two people of the same sex want to live together - go ahead!

    No one is trying to stop you.

    Do whatever you want with whatever naughty bits you have that turns you on.

    No one cares.

    But don't expect people to agree when you try to call it a marriage.

    It isn't.

    In that sense, though I can't stand the guy, I find myself leaning toward Beat Takeshi.

    You may as well talk about marriage to a piano, or a golf club.

    You can't start a family with those either.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    So, despite the logical, rational, and moral reasons why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, you have decided that these don't really exist?

    So where are these mythical points to which you refer? I've seen logical fallacies, bigotry and hatred.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    @johninnaha That is a logical fallacy. A piano or golf club cannot love a person back and cannot decide to marry a person.

    Following your logical fallacy argument, would I be correct in thinking that you are against older couples who cannot conceive marrying? Or younger couples with fertility problems? Of course that would make no sense either, would it?

  • 0

    johninnaha

    Bluebris - I obviously failed to make my point.

    I'm not for or against anything in this issue.

    I'm just stating the obvious that marriage is the union of man and woman.

    Words mean what we agree them to mean.

    There are a few people who think that they should be allowed to call their cohabiting with a person of the same genital grouping marriage, but the vast majority doesn't agree.

    Good or bad isn't the issue.

    My personal opinion, if you're interested, is that I don't know see that older couples who cannot conceive need to get married either. I also don't see anything wrong with younger couples living together in or out of (ghastly word) wedLOCK - whether or not they can conceive is not the issue.

    What's the big thing about marriage?

    The logical fallacy about marrying pianos or golf clubs was deliberate and done for emphasis, not rational argument.

    But I thought that was the point of Meinherr Takeshi's comment about bestiality.

    I wonder how you feel about Obama coming out of the closet to support gay "marriage," and in the same sentence trying to convince people that he and his wife are PRACTICING Christians.

    Perhaps they need to practice a bit more.

    My personal feeling is that he might have gotten more votes with a comment like, "Gay marriage? Well, I think we need to be more tolerant of people's differences, don't you?"

  • -2

    Bluebris

    I'm just stating the obvious that marriage is the union of man and woman.

    But that's an opinion, not a fact. In many countries a marriage CAN be between two men or two women. So the meaning of the word has been updated, expanded even.

    As far as I'm concerned, people who are gay have not chosen to be gay, but they make up 10% of the population. A marriage (regardless of how long it eventually ends up lasting) is a declaration of a couple's love for each other, a commitment or promise to each other. I don't see why 10% of the population shouldn't be allowed the chance to declare that love and commitment because of some outdated notions or because of bigotry and hatred. It is not the fault of the 10% that a percentage of the majority was poorly raised to believe that discriminating against minorities is ok.

  • -1

    Patrick Bommarito

    In my 25 years in Japan (over a 35 year span), I had always considered "Beat" Takeshi to be Smart, Talented and Very Funny. This feeling was enforced by his public humiliation, re-birth and long term re-habiliation needed after his famous "COMEDIAN CRASHES A SCOTTER WHILE DRUNK" incident . He took "SPINNING" to a new level in Japan.

    Several of his films have very complex and homo-erotic sub-stories and they were done well! Thus said; NO matter whether or not this was said as a JOKE or as a SERIOUS COMMENT, there is NO WAY he will ever be able to return to his previous level of excellence in my mind! Had always felt I had an ALLY in the Japanese Media but now I have realized that just have another ENEMY to battle in my "WAR of ACCEPTANCE" in Japan.

    In general, Japanese tend to take comments made by (in)famous people at face value and are not taught to read between the lines or to make their own conclusions. The comment has done major damage to Gay People, Open Hearted Straight People and to "BEAT" TAKESHI himself.

    I will NEVER watch another MOVIE or TV program if "BEAT" is even remotely connected! BOYCOTT the "BEAT"!

  • 4

    Wolfpack

    Thomas Anderson:

    People have the right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that other people should have less freedom because of their opinion.

    Being called "married" does not change anything for homosexuals. They can already love and be intimate with whomever they want. Nobody is saying they cannot be gay or lesbian. They are free. However, when someones freedom collides with another persons then what? Like with abortion, when a woman's "right to choose" extends to a full term baby who is "terminated" via partial birth abortion, the freedom for life itself is denied to one for the freedom of the other. With respect to gay marriage, my freedom to enter an institution that is basic to nearly every human society for thousands of years is affected because it changes the definition of that institution. In my view, it lessens and degrades it to something that it has never been before. All of this because of one group of peoples particular sexual lifestyle and subculture. There are other types of sexual lifestyles that now will logically have equal claim for the same status. Should we now make polygamous marriages the norm everywhere? Homosexuals already have just about the maximum amount of freedom that they can possibly have without infringing upon the institution of marriage itself. Just change a few laws to allow gay partners hospital visits and inheritance rights and that is all that is needed.

    Depends on what you mean by "most people". In Europe, most people support same-sex marriage or union.

    I said, most people in the world. I didn't say most people in London, Brussels, or on Maple Road.

    You don't even have to AGREE with it to accept it. I don't agree with religion, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to ban religion. It's called the freedom to pursue happiness. Everybody has the right to pursue their happiness in any way that they wish as long as it does not harm themselves or others.

    Religion is actually a great analogy. Forcing homosexuals into the institution of marriage is just like attempting to force a person of a certain religion to believe what people of a different religion believe in. I am a married person and you are attempting to force your idea of marriage on me. Why not make your own form of "marriage". Call it civil unions or domestic partnership or whatever but with the same rights. Just don't call it marriage (ie. don't call a Catholic a Muslim). If you were a Baptist, I wouldn't want you to become a Protestant so why must you try to change what my belief in marriage is. Have your own type or "marriage" and be free.

    There is absolutely NO evidence for this. If you have any evidence, then I would like to see you present it. There is no evidence that same-sex marriage somehow "degrades" society, whatever that means.

    It weakens the idea of marriage - that is a fact as-well-as just plain obvious. Marriage is a model for society that is already in trouble. Gay marriage doesn't help - it just makes matters worse. As for evidence, one area would be the many studies that state definitively that children do better in a home with a father and mother. Men and women are different and children gain from those differences when they are raised and socialized in their communities. There are exceptions and there are situations where children are unfortunately not raised in the ideal situation. However, in general it remains true. Search the web, the evidence is there if you are open to it. My guess is you are not.

  • 1

    Olegek

    @Bluebris I'm just stating the obvious that marriage is the union of man and woman.

    But that's an opinion, not a fact. In many countries a marriage CAN be between two men or two women. So the meaning of the word has been updated, expanded even.

    this two men - they can have a baby or two ?

    Can they ?

    "Obama supports gay marriage. You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then," Kitano said after being shown footage of people celebrating the U.S. president's comments.

    He's a real man !!! congratulations !!

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    OMGhontoni:

    Absolute rubbish. Sorry. I have several gay and bi friends. I am not bi myself simply because I dont fancy women. Not because I think they are disgusting or that same-sex relationships are immoral or wrong in any way - I simply dont fancy women.

    Oh you just "don't fancy women". That's like saying, "oh I'm not racist, I have black (white, Asian, etc) friends!" If it's not immoral and it's okay, why not even try to have a homosexual relationship with another woman? Sounds pretty closed minded to me. You say you are okay with it but face it, you couldn't bring yourself to do it; you are not willing to admit to yourself that there is more to it than just "not fancying" a person of the same sex. Would you be willing to reject another person that was attracted to you solely because of their race? If you did, that would be racist. Likewise for people of a different sexuality. Aren't you really just saying you are homophobic?

  • -3

    Patrick Bommarito

    PS! This is NOT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE for me! This is about the power of people in the media and the potentially their comments will hurt other people!

  • 3

    Wolfpack

    @serendipitous:

    Also, it is known that there are quite a few species that engage in same-sex activities (solely for enjoyment and obviously not for reproduction), not only humans. Get over it.

    Bad argument in favor of gay marriage. There are also quite a few species that engage in sex activities between adults and adolescents (obviously they cannot reproduce) as happens among humans. Should we then "get over" pedophiles? The fact that animals engage in same gender sex acts is the worst argument in favor of gay marriage.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    " but they make up 10% of the population."

    Don't believe it.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    @Blurbris:

    So where are these mythical points to which you refer? I've seen logical fallacies, bigotry and hatred.

    Claiming that the only logical, rational and moral arguments against homosexual marriage are, "bigotry and hatred" is .... a logical fallacy.

  • 1

    yasukuni

    Zichi and others keep talking about American and Christians. What's that got to do with Japan and Beat Takeshi. It's obvious that on this JT board the vast majority of people support gay marriage.

    But this is not American, and Japan isn't Christian. But for some weird reason, Americans come here and attack Beat Takeshi and want to burn his DVD's and are going to boycott his movies?

    There are hardly any bible bashers in Japan, but they just think like most of the world has for all time that gay marriage is...well....weird. This article talks about enraging people, but it didn't seem like anyone on the TV show was enraged. The only enraged are the gaijin on here, who think Japan has to become what they want it to be.

    Aren't there more important things to worry about besides burning DVD's and frothing at the mouth when someone says something you don't like?

    Of all the problems Japan has, now we have to go on witch hunts? Crazy. If you are gay and must get married, go to the US or Europe that you think is so enlightened. (and which the world will have to bail out soon).

  • -1

    yasukuni

    "I have learnt over my many decades that the GAY bashers are the kind of people who don't just stop there and would oppose many aspects of equality and equal opportunities."

    Oh really?

    "Often, GAY bashers are the bible brigade,"

    Every Japanese person I know laughs when they talk about gay marriage in the US. And they have never opened a bible. So, Beat Takeshi and most Japanese, and most Chinese, and most people on the planet are all "gay bashers" and are part of the bible brigade?

    Japan is turning into the twilight zone.

  • 0

    yasukuni

    "Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both natural. It has been proven in animals "

    You think it's been proven that 1% or 10% of animals are homosexuals.....?

    This is all too ridiculous. Which is the point Kitano was making. He's just normal that's all.

    Just take a vote on it.

  • 1

    zichi

    Yasukuni,

    You seem to be the one not understanding this post.

    “Obama supports gay marriage. You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then,” Kitano said after being shown footage of people celebrating the U.S. president’s comments.

    Kitano's comment and opinion is aimed at Pres Obama and his recent statement supporting GAY marriage. This post isn't about Japan, Japanese people, well except for Kitano.

    So I don't understand your comment. I suggest you read the post again.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    yasukuni, why are you being so defensive? Are you saying that gays shouldn't have equal rights as straights? Wouldn't that be bad for Japan, especially for gays in Japan? (oh that's right, I forget that the gays didn't exist in Japan...)

    You would have a point if Japan was still in isolation like during the sakoku period. But alas, it is no longer an isolated country which is detached from the rest of the world. Japan is a part of the international community. Japan is a member of the UN. As a member of the UN, Japan has the duty to protect the international laws and international human rights laws.

    And many foreigners go to Japan and even live there. Imagine that...

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Wolfpack:

    Claiming that the only logical, rational and moral arguments against homosexual marriage are, "bigotry and hatred" is .... a logical fallacy.

    No, Wolfpack, bigotry and hatred are NOT logical, rational, or moral.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Wolfpack:

    Bad argument in favor of gay marriage. There are also quite a few species that engage in sex activities between adults and adolescents (obviously they cannot reproduce) as happens among humans. Should we then "get over" pedophiles? The fact that animals engage in same gender sex acts is the worst argument in favor of gay marriage.

    This is actually somewhat of a good point, just because animals do something DOES NOT mean that it's either right OR wrong. It's neither, it's neutral.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    yasukuni:

    There are hardly any bible bashers in Japan, but they just think like most of the world has for all time that gay marriage is...well....weird.

    So this is a country that has had a history of homosexuality and homosexual love, a country which has "new halfs", gay and transgendered tarentos, yaoi and yuri art... but homosexual marriage is just... weird?

    I really don't get this. I don't get why Japan would be against homosexual marriage.

  • -2

    oikawa

    wolfpack

    Oh you just "don't fancy women". That's like saying, "oh I'm not racist, I have black (white, Asian, etc) friends!" If it's not immoral and it's okay, why not even try to have a homosexual relationship with another woman? Would you be willing to reject another person that was attracted to you solely because of their race? If you did, that would be racist. Likewise for people of a different sexuality.

    Lol! Seriously? That is the single most stupid argument I have ever heard in my entire life. You cannot be serious.

  • 1

    Wolfpack

    oikawa:

    Lol! Seriously? That is the single most stupid argument I have ever heard in my entire life. You cannot be serious.

    If you believe that sexuality is similar to race - something you are born with - then no, it isn't a stupid argument. It is logically consistent. Would you endorse a prohibition against inter-racial marriage? That would be a ignorant way of thinking these days.

    But as is evident to anyone with a brain in their heads, being homosexual is based solely on what you do - not what you are. Therefore, to say that you think gay marriage isn't a good thing is akin to saying it is not a good idea to smoke cigarettes. That doesn't mean you are not free to do it, but I see no benefit for society in promoting it.

  • 1

    Wolfpack

    Thomas Anderson:

    No, Wolfpack, bigotry and hatred are NOT logical, rational, or moral.

    I couldn't agree with you more. I definitely do not support hateful and bigoted viewpoints. I should point out that not agreeing with you doesn't make someone either of those things. If someone is a bigot or hateful, at least give an exact reason for it. Just making an argument based on emotions instead of logic and reason meets the definition of a logical fallacy and contributes nothing to the discussion.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Wolfpack:

    If someone is a bigot or hateful, at least give an exact reason for it.

    Well if the only arguments that I see against same-sex marriage are something like "It's not normal" or "It's disgusting" or even worse "It will lead to bestiality", then how can they not be hateful or bigoted? So far, I really haven't seen any legitimate argument against same-sex marriage.

  • -3

    johninnaha

    Someone on here made the point that there are animals that indulge in "homosexual" activity.

    Do these same-sex animals set up home together?

    Do they form families and adopt children from other animals?

    I think not.

    The vast majority of people in Europe, Japan and the States do not support gay "marriage." Those who do, do not amount to a very large number. I don't have figures to prove this, but talking to people should give some idea. Gays have a lot of ground to cover for gay "marriage" to be accepted. A long way to go.

    Conversely, I admire Thailand for their acceptance of homosexuals. I wonder how this issue is treated there?

  • -2

    zichi

    Some of those GY bashers are the same as the people from the Terry Jones church whichever protests at the funerals of servicemen killed in action. How eveil is that?

    @johninnaha

    more Europeans suppose GAY marriage or Civil Unions than those in America who oppose it. Even Spain which is one of the most Catholic countries in the world has GAY marriage.

  • 1

    Tigerta9

    Me thinks he doth protest too much! I think Kitano-san must have forgotten the culture of douseiai amongst Samurai in Japan's glorified feudal era - much less the geinokai!

  • 0

    imap2223

    Can't stand the guy. Liked one of his movies although it was a bit pedestrian, just like the man, himself. He is not intelligent nor funny though. Even though I don't support gay marriages but would prefer that they have the same rights as traditional couples, I find his comments and his mentality to be "bestiality". Even though I like the movie hana-bi, it was not worth the award it received at all. And his intellect is not worth the time that the J-media gives him as well. Just another moron on TV with an opinion.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    Well if the only arguments that I see against same-sex marriage are something like "It's not normal" or "It's disgusting" or even worse "It will lead to bestiality", then how can they not be hateful or bigoted? So far, I really haven't seen any legitimate argument against same-sex marriage.

    Very nicely put Thomas. There hasn't been one good reason why people are against equality put forward in this whole thread of 300+ comments.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    But as is evident to anyone with a brain in their heads, being homosexual is based solely on what you do - not what you are.

    Seriously? That's an argument you honestly think carries any weight? What you are makes you do what you do!

    Do you therefore think a person born straight but who doesn't have sex is therefore not heterosexual because they don't do "it."

    That makes no sense at all I'm afraid!

  • -1

    Joseph Tompkins

    It's kind of funny though, I've always thought that this guy was gay. It's like the TV evangelists in America who blast gays publicly and then get caught using crystal-meth and visiting male prostitutes.

  • -2

    zurcronium

    Since when is a cow a consenting adult? Logic always escapes the homophobes.

    Beat probably has something is in distant past, or maybe the present, regarding gay sex. I am not too familiar with him but he does appear gay in many respects. Homophobes are usually in the closet.

  • -3

    Nessie

    Since when is a cow a consenting adult?

    And veal is right out.

  • -1

    state broken people

    some not very perceptive people here need to note the use of 'eventually' in kitano's criticism of obama's supposed evolution of this issue (the president's latest, most transparent form of trawling for campaign cash - - 1 in 6 of obama's top bundlers are self-identified homosexualists). it is clear that kitano is of the opinion that from the legalization of same-sex marriage society will face pressure to assent to demands for allowing polygamy. he throws in animals because it wakes up people whose reliance on cliche-ridden thought has put them to sleep.

    "You would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then,"

  • -2

    Bluebris

    reliance on cliche-ridden thought

    But the whole thought process of "you would support a marriage to an animal eventually, then" is based on a reliance on cliche-ridden thought.

  • 3

    zichi

    state broken people

    but the headline of the post is,

    "Beat Takeshi compares same-sex marriage with bestiality"

  • 1

    johninnaha

    Logic always escapes the homophobes.

    It seems to me that logic is hardly present in this "discussion."

    There's an awful lot of knee jerk reaction.

  • 0

    tmarie

    Well, the purpose of marriage is procreation

    Damn, I wish someone had told me this before I married. Here I was thinking that it was all about being legally bound to the person I am in love with.

    So, again, for those couples that can't have kids that are male/female relationships, should be ban them from marrying??

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Animals can't give consent. End of story. Allowing same-sex marriage will not lead to allowing animals and humans to be married.

    it is clear that kitano is of the opinion that from the legalization of same-sex marriage society will face pressure to assent to demands for allowing polygamy.

    Will polygamy be allowed? Who knows really, maybe we should be discussing and debating about polygamy in the future. There's nothing wrong with a healthy discussion. But I really don't see any legitimate reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

    Again, this is mostly about fearing CHANGE... It's about "keeping the tradition". But traditions aren't always right. Just because we've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean that it's right. Racism and sexism were prevalent even just 100 years ago, but now we recognize that they're the wrong ideas.

  • 2

    Molenir

    Well, the purpose of marriage is procreation

    Don't you hate it when people you agree with generally, use absurd and idiotic arguments to promote the ideas with which you agree. On the one hand, if you stay silent, you don't add your voice to promote the ideal, on the other hand, if you speak out, you risk associating yourself with the absurd ideas of those who support the same ideal.

    Allow me to simply state, that I don't believe, for even a moment that the purpose of marriage is procreation. It is one of the results. But then, you don't need to get married to have children. You should of course. Children should grow up in a stable, happy home, with both a father and a mother. But then, thats the ideal. And unfortunately, it seems to happen less and less often. Either because of divorce, problems in the home, or simply because the parents never married in the first place.

    Again, this is mostly about fearing CHANGE... It's about "keeping the tradition". But traditions aren't always right. Just because we've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean that it's right.

    Not about fearing change. And while some traditions may indeed be wrong, they are not always so. This in fact is one of those cases. The problem with racism and sexism is obvious. It is injustice. However Marriage does not suffer from injustice. Marriage is an ideal. It is what everyone aspires to. Saying 2 people cannot get married because they are of the same gender is not injustice, it is merely stating the requirements of what we in society consider a marriage to be. Just as we say, you cannot marry more then one person at a time, or you cannot marry a goat. Or for that matter, you cannot marry a person against their will. These are simple requirements. Changing these requirements would create injustice, not remove it.

    If you wish to give rights to people of the same gender, like others, I have no problem with this. Give people the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Regardless of whether they are dating for 10 years and have never married, or whether they are gay. Is there really a difference?

  • -1

    Bluebris

    it is merely stating the requirements of what we in society consider a marriage to be.

    You're assuming that you can speak on behalf of everyone in society? You don't speak on behalf of me and you don't speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the people I know, both Japanese and non-Japanese.

    Marriage is a public declaration of love and commitment between two consenting adults. Why should gay people not be able to make that same declaration due to their sexuality, something which they have absolutely no control over, in the same way that heterosexuals didn't decide to be heterosexual.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    "So this is a country that has had a history of homosexuality and homosexual love, a country which has "new halfs", gay and transgendered tarentos, yaoi and yuri art... but homosexual marriage is just... weird?I really don't get this. I don't get why Japan would be against homosexual marriage."

    Okay so you don't get it. Maybe if you talk to more people and understand Japan more you will understand. Maybe you can study Japanese history, then speak with dozens or hundreds of Japanese and then you will understand

    Somethings are hard for some people to understand. But I'm sure you'll get it if you study more. Ganbatte! :)

  • -1

    yasukuni

    "Racism and sexism were prevalent even just 100 years ago, but now we recognize that they're the wrong ideas."

    Racism is still prevalent. But you're getting everything mixed up. This whole "people used to be racists, they now know that's bad, so they should now accept homosexual marriage" is becoming are really worn out silly argument. Do you guys all read the same manuals or something?

  • -1

    yasukuni

    Well said Mr Molenir.

  • 0

    Molenir

    You're assuming that you can speak on behalf of everyone in society? You don't speak on behalf of me and you don't speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the people I know, both Japanese and non-Japanese.

    Marriage is a public declaration of love and commitment between two consenting adults.

    So what you are saying is, that I don't speak on behalf of everyone in society, yet you apparently do. While I certainly hope that what you say is included in a marriage, it is not necessarily there. Indeed, I know of many marriages where there is neither love nor commitment. And in fact in many cases, there never was from the start. As I said, Marriage is an ideal, and what defines it, and what it is, is what society as a whole desires. And your expressions and wishes to the contrary do not change that.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    I gave my opinion. You wrote about what society wants - as if you can represent everyone. Do you really not see the difference there? At no point did I even hint that what I was saying was the opinion of society.

    Can you give me a proper reason why gay people should not be treated as equal as normal people?

  • 0

    Bluebris

    Maybe you can study Japanese history....

    Maybe you should study it yourself, and not just the state-fed rubbish you get in schools here. Do a bit of research. You might be surprised what you find out.

  • 1

    johninnaha

    There are agreements in society. In England and Japan, we drive on the left, on the continent of Europe they drive on the right. I think there may be other countries that do so too. We make traffic rules so that getting from A to B goes more smoothly.

    We make agreements for marriage. Not everyone is allowed to marry. It depends on the bit of the planet you are standing on, but in some places, you cannot marry younger than 18, in others 16 or even 13. You also cannot marry someone who is already married to someone else. This even has a name, it's called bigamy. In Japan, if you divorce, the woman cannot remarry for six months. Certain religions are not allowed to marry people of other religions. Chinese couples are supposed to have only one baby. Some cultures punish adultery by stoning.

    Strangely, amongst all these rules and agreements, love doesn't appear to be a constant. I personally think it should be, but see that it isn't necessarily present. It was - and probably still is - a custom for sons and daughters of wealthy people or royalty for political reasons. I've met many older Japanese who obediently married the person they were expected to. Arranged marriage is quite common in many parts of the world.

    And yes, there is polygamy and even polyandry.

    As far as I understand it, the institution of marriage is set up to produce and rear the future generation. The institution of marriage has its special vocabulary, words like, husband, wife, bride, groom, father in law, mother in law, etc., etc.

    I don't see why we have to throw all this out the window because a few people want to pretend they are man and wife.

    I'm not actually against same sex "marriage," I don't object to it. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I can't see any advantage for a gay couple to be married or not married. And since a) it is not something that gets much agreement in this society at this time and b) the customs involved would have to be drastically altered and in fact, c) the whole concept of marriage would have to be redefined, I just cannot think with it.

    You want to make your lives together?

    Do it.

    Why call it marriage?

    Why call it anything?

    If you were really happy with it, it wouldn't matter whether people around you agreed or not.

    And if it was successful, it might become a NEW institution with its OWN customs.

  • 2

    Wolfpack

    Thomas Anderson:

    Animals can't give consent. End of story. Allowing same-sex marriage will not lead to allowing animals and humans to be married.

    Animals don't have to give consent. They don't give consent to be purchased at a pet store and contained in our homes. Cows are not asked for consent to being served for dinner. Consent is a false argument with respect to animals. End of story. Seen in this light, Kitano has a point.

    Well if the only arguments that I see against same-sex marriage are something like "It's not normal" or "It's disgusting" or even worse "It will lead to bestiality", then how can they not be hateful or bigoted? So far, I really haven't seen any legitimate argument against same-sex marriage.

    If the best arguments in favor of same sex marriage are grounded in emotion and words like "hateful" and "bigoted" then it would appear that supporting it lacks any basis in reason or logic. Would a person be a hateful bigot if they opposed polygamy? How about marriage between an adult woman and a 16 year old male? How about marriage between first cousins that are infertile?

    There are many types of marriage that are illegal that you could make the same case in favor of as you could for homosexual marriage. It isn't hateful or bigoted.

    So what exactly is the best argument in favor of homosexual marriage that would not also apply in many other cases - for example - to a bisexual or a polygamist wanting to marry two or more other people?

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Molenir

    However Marriage does not suffer from injustice. Marriage is an ideal. It is what everyone aspires to. Saying 2 people cannot get married because they are of the same gender is not injustice, it is merely stating the requirements of what we in society consider a marriage to be. Just as we say, you cannot marry more then one person at a time, or you cannot marry a goat. Or for that matter, you cannot marry a person against their will. These are simple requirements. Changing these requirements would create injustice, not remove it.

    How is that any different than even less than 50 years ago when the society deemed that you can only marry someone of your own race? We've changed the laws, and now we can have inter-racial marriages. Banning inter-racial marriage was simply based on bigotry and racism. And even before that, women were forced into marriages and had no say or rights. And we've changed that, too.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    yasukuni

    Racism is still prevalent. But you're getting everything mixed up. This whole "people used to be racists, they now know that's bad, so they should now accept homosexual marriage" is becoming are really worn out silly argument. Do you guys all read the same manuals or something?

    Do you even know how to form a logical argument? Good lord... I am saying that I am for same-sex marriage because I see nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.

    Please explain to me why same-sex marriage should not be allowed, other than for bigoted or prejudiced reasons.

  • 2

    Molenir

    Can you give me a proper reason why gay people should not be treated as equal as normal people?

    Why do you think they aren't? Because they don't meet the qualifications for marriage? Neither do a lot of other people presently. Either because they don't have someone, because the partner isn't willing etc. If we are redefining marriage to suit your preference, give me a reason why those people likewise shouldn't be discriminated against.

    And explain to me if you will, precisely why we need to redefine marriage to suit your wishes? What is it about marriage that you need, in order to be happy? Do you need to be married in order to be able to visit loved ones in the hospital? I'm all for changing the law to make that possible. How about tax returns. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to consider yourself married to a goat, in order to file a joint return, then go ahead. The government takes too much money out as it is. Why does society need to throw out what has been the standard, and the ideal forever, merely to suit your wishes? Or is it really just about acceptance?

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    1. 50 years ago inter-racial marriage was deemed wrong and illegal by the society. We've changed the laws to accept inter-racial marriages.
    2. 100 years ago women (and children) were forced into marriages. We've changed that too so that they now have their own say in the matter.

    Gasp... the definition of marriage changes over time to adjust to the changing society's needs...

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Wolfpack

    Animals don't have to give consent. They don't give consent to be purchased at a pet store and contained in our homes. Cows are not asked for consent to being served for dinner. Consent is a false argument with respect to animals. End of story. Seen in this light, Kitano has a point.

    But when you're getting MARRIED, you need the consent of both partners, duh. We're not talking about having pets or dinners.

    Wolfpack

    If the best arguments in favor of same sex marriage are grounded in emotion and words like "hateful" and "bigoted" then it would appear that supporting it lacks any basis in reason or logic.

    I'm saying that comments like "It's not normal, therefore it's wrong" or "It's disgusting, therefore it's wrong" are hateful and bigoted... ugh.

    Wolfpack

    So what exactly is the best argument in favor of homosexual marriage

    We now more or less recognize homosexuality. We now more or less know that homosexuality is something that you're born with, not something that you just happen to choose (just like you don't choose to be heterosexual). Denying two consenting adults from getting married goes against the basic human rights protected by the constitution.

    From example, from the Japanese constitution:

    Article 13:

    All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.

  • -3

    Priest

    Kitano is a great director, actor, artist and social commentator. Same sex marriage is a joke and so is allowing gay couples to adopt. Asian people recognize this and laugh at western leaders who pander to these victim groups.

    People usually get married to have children. A child should have a father and a mother. Anybody who thinks that having 2 daddies, or 2 mommies is as good as that is a moron. Unfortunately, people are afraid in Europe or America to speak their minds.

    It is only in European and North America that such idiocy is not only tolerated but anybody who does not endorse such madness is hectored and called a bigot etc. In the UK, a christian couple were disqualified from adopting because they were against gay marriages, thus denying a child the chance of a life with a pair of loving parents.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Priest

    Same sex marriage is a joke and so is allowing gay couples to adopt. Asian people recognize this and laugh at western leaders who pander to these victim groups.

    Lol... keep being a bigot. Notice how you don't come up with any good reason for your bigotry?

    People usually get married to have children. A child should have a father and a mother.

    What about single parents? How many married couples actually have kids?

    Anybody who thinks that having 2 daddies, or 2 mommies is as good as that is a moron.

    Says who? You? Is it proven that having same sex parents is bad? No, it is not and you are only speaking from your prejudiced little mind. What's moronic is your prejudice which is completely unfounded and not based on facts.

    It is only in European and North America that such idiocy is not only tolerated but anybody who does not endorse such madness is hectored and called a bigot etc.

    Please explain to me how it is "mad"? Oh, you can't? That's too bad, it only means that you ARE a bigot. You can't even come up with a good reason that is based on solid facts.

    thus denying a child the chance of a life with a pair of loving parents.

    Oh the irony... and you're not allowing loving gays parents to adopt children.

  • -4

    Priest

    Thomas Anderson,

    Yea..yea...I`m a bigot because I like most of the world think that gay marriage is a joke and that gay couples should not be able to adopt. What non English speaking countries support gay marriage or would allow gay adoption?

    The best possible family unit is a father and a mother. There are single parents who do a great job but ask a kid if they would rather just have a mother or father or both and the vast majority would answer a mom and a dad. It`s plain common sense. A child can learn from a male and a female. Anybody that thinks a child would benefit more from 2 dads or 2 mums than a mum or a dad is clearly a person who is not very smart.

    People like you, are now trying to make churches perform gay marriages despite it being against their teachings.

    Unfortunately, I cannot stop gay couples being able to adopt because such madness is now law in Europe. Thankfully, the rest of the (bigoted) world laughs at such stupidity.

    • Moderator

      Please tone down your rhetoric.

  • 3

    Bluebris

    What non English speaking countries support gay marriage or would allow gay adoption?

    Hmmm, off the top of my head I can give you Germany and Spain right away. Also The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Argentina and Portugal. They all allow same-sex marriage. Some of those countries are very catholic, too, so people there aren't even hiding behind religion like so many others.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    It is only in European and North America that such idiocy is not only tolerated but anybody who does not endorse such madness is hectored and called a bigot etc.

    Argentina will be very surprised to learn it has become part of North America or Europe.

  • -5

    Molenir

    We now more or less recognize homosexuality. We now more or less know that homosexuality is something that you're born with, not something that you just happen to choose (just like you don't choose to be heterosexual). Denying two consenting adults from getting married goes against the basic human rights protected by the constitution.

    Actually, homosexuality is something you do, not something you are born with. You may be born with homosexual tendencies, just as you may be born with a weakness to alcohol, or a sexual fondness for children, however it is only if you drink alcohol that you are an alcoholic, and only if you molest children that you are a pedophile. Indeed you only become a murderer by actually killing someone. The same is true with homosexuality. Only those actively engaged in the behavior are homosexual. Those who choose to fight their urges, either because they don't have them as strongly, or because they feel it is wrong, are not homosexual.

    And once again, everyone has the right to get married, provided they meet the qualifications to do so. If you have a willing partner of the opposite gender thats all it takes. You can have your homosexual tendencies and still get married. So no one is denied any rights. Trying to create the right, trying to change things by saying, if you love someone, you should be able to marry them, is nonsense. It is merely an attempt at greater societal acceptance, and one that attempts to force everyone to agree and tolerate immoral behavior.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    Thomas Anderson:

    But when you're getting MARRIED, you need the consent of both partners, duh. We're not talking about having pets or dinners.

    Are you serious? People don't give animals choices or ask for their consent for anything. There is no such thing as consent between animals either. There is only natural instinct and survival. Look, I can't imagine that many people would want to marry their pets but the point that Kitano has made all too well is that gay marriage is just the beginning of the changes that will come to the institution of marriage when you change the very foundation of it's meaning. Things that were not even considered likely 50 to 100 years ago are possible now. However, I think the idea of people marrying animals is mostly a distraction at this point.

    We now more or less recognize homosexuality.

    People have always recognized homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality and there always will be. There are a lot of things that have always been - like bestiality and pedophilia. Just because it is a sexual practice that exists doesn't make it a civil right.

    We now more or less know that homosexuality is something that you're born with, not something that you just happen to choose (just like you don't choose to be heterosexual).

    We now more or less do not believe that at all. There is no proof that sexuality is innate like race and gender. There is no "gay gene". There are genes for race and gender - but not for behavior that people engage in like sex. The implication that people are born homosexual is that it it is also be true that people are born to be bisexual or born to be pedophiles. If that is true then should we allow marriage rights based on these sexual practices as well? The "born gay" argument doesn't work because people do many different things sexually. The reason for that is because unlike animals, humans have the mental capacity to do things other than by instinct alone. We can choose all kinds of sexual practices for no other reason than because we can.

    Denying two consenting adults from getting married goes against the basic human rights protected by the constitution.

    Unless the Japanese people change their constitution to include sexuality then you don't have much of a point here. It doesn't seem like you have really given the concept of gay marriage much thought beyond an emotional justification. That's not enough. There is just no logical meat to your argument in favor of it.

    I'm saying that comments like "It's not normal, therefore it's wrong" or "It's disgusting, therefore it's wrong" are hateful and bigoted... ugh.

    I'm sorry but I really don't see it that way. The mere idea of homosexual intimacy is abhorrent to me and is a perfectly natural reaction for a heterosexual person. In fact, any person that is heterosexual if placed in a situation of being intimate with a person of the same sex would would see it the same way. It they did not, then they are likely not strictly heterosexual - but perhaps bisexual. Heterosexual people do not say that they find gay/lesbian sex distasteful because it isn't necessary - it's a given. I don't have a problem having gay/lesbian acquaintances or colleague and can still think that their sexuality is disgusting. Homosexuals exist, I don't have a problem accepting that. What I have a problem is with people trying to brow beat me into accepting that someones sexual picadillos should be elevated to a civil right. Race and sex - I can understand. Sexual behavior is not a right. S&M is not a civil right. Having sex with multiple people at the same time is not a civil right. It is just something that people do.

    In my opinion, you have completely failed in making a reasoned argument in favor of homosexual marriage. It is based solely on an emotional argument. My guess is that the arguments is for acceptance. I think that society can be accepting of homosexuals without extending to them the right of marry.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    I think that society can be accepting of homosexuals without extending to them the right of marry.

    So accepting them in the sense that society can't get rid of them, but not accepting them as being equal to the heterosexuals?

    Wolfpack, what would you do if your own child was gay? Would their mere presence offend you as you think about their "abhorrent" homosexual acts of intimacy? Would you really want them to be treated as less than other people because of something they have no control over?

  • -3

    tchanglee

    I note there are 340 coments made so far. I also note that there are lots & lots of comments from the pro-homosexual group. Pro-homosexual is a belief so is the pro-heterosexual. What's wrong when a group of hetersexual spoke out against the homosexual? Homosexual behaviour in the society is a degression of the moral of the society. It is never progressive!

  • -3

    yasukuni

    "Please explain to me why same-sex marriage should not be allowed, other than for bigoted or prejudiced reasons."

    Okay. Because marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman who are not closely related. That's what it is. Maybe there are people who think they should be able to marry the father or sister or son, or that we should lower the age of consent to 10.

    I'm sure some people could observe sexual activity between siblings in animals, or very young and old or whatever and then conclude that it's therefore natural. There are humans who seem to fall in love with minors or their family members. By far the majority of people think that's crazy and wrong and unnatural. Just like they do when they hear about two women wanting to marry.

    You want to change the rules of the whole planet and allow men to marry men. I think that's crazy and don't think the laws need to be changed. But it doesn't make me personally angry or want to go and burn DVDs and boycott directors and beat people up for expressing an opinion.

    Humans will naturally be romantically and sexually attracted to the opposite sex. It's really just basic biology. If there are an extremely small percentage of humans who insist that for absolutely no reason they are different, well they have my sympathy. But, I don't agree that marriage laws need to change, that they should adopt children, or that the vast majority of humans on the planet need to be so viciously attacked for simply stating what most people believe.

    btw, there has been interracial marriage for centuries. You can't say there was universal opposition to the very idea of interracial marriage on the same level as gay marriage - regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    It's crazy that we even need to have this argument. So, I just won't be bothered about it anymore.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    I'm really getting tired of these non-arguments...

    Wolfpack

    Are you serious? People don't give animals choices or ask for their consent for anything. There is no such thing as consent between animals either. There is only natural instinct and survival. Look, I can't imagine that many people would want to marry their pets but the point that Kitano has made all too well is that gay marriage is just the beginning of the changes that will come to the institution of marriage when you change the very foundation of it's meaning. Things that were not even considered likely 50 to 100 years ago are possible now. However, I think the idea of people marrying animals is mostly a distraction at this point.

    We're talking about MARRIAGE. When people want to get MARRIED, they would need the consent of BOTH PARTNERS. That is by LAW. By definition, you can not marry an animal, just as you can not marry a child. How is this difficult to understand...?

    like bestiality and pedophilia

    Ok, so can people stop subtly comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality now? Thanks.

    We now more or less do not believe that at all. There is no proof that sexuality is innate like race and gender. There is no "gay gene". There are genes for race and gender - but not for behavior that people engage in like sex. The implication that people are born homosexual is that it it is also be true that people are born to be bisexual or born to be pedophiles. If that is true then should we allow marriage rights based on these sexual practices as well? The "born gay" argument doesn't work because people do many different things sexually. The reason for that is because unlike animals, humans have the mental capacity to do things other than by instinct alone. We can choose all kinds of sexual practices for no other reason than because we can.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but something doesn't have to be genetic in order to be born with something. Something can just happen with random chance and mutation. Anyway, I think that this question is too complex and we won't find an answer any time soon.

    Most gay people would report that they were gay all of their lives, just as straights were straight all of their lives. Sexuality is not something that you just happen to choose, although that COULD happen but only very rarely.

    Does it really matter whether it is a choice or not? Why can't two consenting adults just marry whomever they want? We're talking about two consenting adults, not adults or children so stop comparing same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality already...!

    Unless the Japanese people change their constitution to include sexuality then you don't have much of a point here. It doesn't seem like you have really given the concept of gay marriage much thought beyond an emotional justification. That's not enough. There is just no logical meat to your argument in favor of it.

    If the constitution protects basic human rights and the right to pursue happiness, then not being able to marry whomever they want (a consenting ADULT) would be contradictory to the constitution. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    I'm sorry but I really don't see it that way. The mere idea of homosexual intimacy is abhorrent to me and is a perfectly natural reaction for a heterosexual person. In fact, any person that is heterosexual if placed in a situation of being intimate with a person of the same sex would would see it the same way. It they did not, then they are likely not strictly heterosexual - but perhaps bisexual. Heterosexual people do not say that they find gay/lesbian sex distasteful because it isn't necessary - it's a given. I don't have a problem having gay/lesbian acquaintances or colleague and can still think that their sexuality is disgusting. Homosexuals exist, I don't have a problem accepting that. What I have a problem is with people trying to brow beat me into accepting that someones sexual picadillos should be elevated to a civil right.

    So? You're missing the point here. Say, I find ketchup disgusting, but that doesn't mean that I should ban people from eating ketchup. What I'm saying is that just because you find something disagreeable, is no reason to outright BAN people from doing things.

    Sexual behavior is not a right. S&M is not a civil right. Having sex with multiple people at the same time is not a civil right. It is just something that people do.

    ??? People are allowed to practice S&M, if they want. Straight couples who practice S&M can get married. People are allowed to have sex in any way that they want. Who is stopping people from doing those things?? Nobody. I wasn't aware that S&M and all the other things were illegal!

    Sigh... I really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

    In my opinion, you have completely failed in making a reasoned argument in favor of homosexual marriage. It is based solely on an emotional argument.

    Oh please...

  • 2

    Thomas Anderson

    I can't stop head palming... All of these arguments still boil down to "I find it uncomfortable or disgusting, therefore it is wrong". Sigh...

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    tchanglee

    Homosexual behaviour in the society is a degression of the moral of the society. It is never progressive!

    That's your opinion, not a fact.

    yasukuni

    Okay. Because marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman who are not closely related. That's what it is. Maybe there are people who think they should be able to marry the father or sister or son, or that we should lower the age of consent to 10.

    Yes, but you didn't give out any reason for opposing same-sex marriage.

    The rest still boils down to "It's not 'normal' or natural, therefore it is wrong" (never mind the fact that almost nothing that we do is "normal" or natural. Since when was using a computer or driving a car normal or natural?)

    or "I find it personally disagreeable, therefore it is wrong". (that's just your opinion, but it's no reason to stop people from doing something)

    or "Most people disagree with it, therefore it is wrong" (most people used to believe that the Earth was flat. Were they right? No.)

  • -3

    Bluebris

    Nope. Those are quite valid for the compartive analysis of homosexuality.

    With all due respect, no they are not. Homosexuality involves the desire to be physically intimate with someone, and if the other person desires them back, then there's nothing to stop them. Paedophilia is when an adult is attracted to a child. It isn't a reciprocal feeling. Bestiality is also not reciprocal.

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    valued_customer

    You sir, are quite hoist on your on petard. You are falling back on the current defintion to make an argument while deriding those who do the same?

    Uh, I wasn't aware that allowing same-sex marriage allowed forced marriage without consent. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't really fundamentally change the definition of marriage. It's still defined by two CONSENTING ADULTS getting together.

    This is the whole point that I was trying to make... There's no way that allowing same-sex marriage will allow marriage to animals or whatever. To suggest so is ridiculous, since it would be impossible.

    Nope. Those are quite valid for the compartive analysis of homosexuality. But they are not valid to compare to same sex marriage. Marriage is not a sexual practice. The former illegality of inter-racial marriage is a fair comparison. So is the fact that inter-religion married is still illegal many places.

    Bluebris said it. To compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia is ridiculous and disingenuous.

  • -2

    yasukuni

    Okay Thomas Anderson, put it this way.

    There is nothing scientifically wrong with letting people ride the Yamanote Line naked.

    WHy is that wrong? It's perfectly natural, shouldn't offend anyone, and isn't hurting anyone. Why do we have dress codes? And lots of rules about lots of things. In the end, you could argue for lots of things.

    But the majority of people for whatever reason - maybe religious, maybe just because they nantokaku don't think it's a good idea, see no reason to change the laws.

    If the majority of people wanted to allow gays to get married, or brothers and sisters to get married, or people to have sex in the park, then so be it.

    But you are wrong. If the law and practice has existed for so long in so many countries regardless of race, religion, culture etc, I still say the onus is on you to come up with the reasons, because you are the one trying to change the law in the vast majority of cases.

    And the only reason gay marriage is allowed in the places it is is because of very strong lobbying.

    Funny, I was just talking to a recent graduate of a prestigious university about this issue. She honestly told me she had never even thought about it. See, you think only fools would be against gay marriage - but I'm telling you that the vast majority have never even thought about it. She actually thought I was joking when I said that many people were upset about Kitano's comment and how gay marriage should be seen as normal.

    Maybe she's had a sheltered life. She also thought I was joking when I said that gaijin say that 10% of the population are gay.

    So, It's up to you guys to keep going with Hollywood movies, dramas, and talking over the internet to re-educate people.

    Because without that, this is not even on most people's radars.

  • -1

    Dennis Bauer

    @yasukuni

    so you have also something against nudists i see. And the rest of your post????? what is that all about?

    if 2 people love each other, i don't see why they cannot get married. Somebody said should the marriage rules should not be changed, ok then let's get back to marry of the eight year old girl to an old dude as long as he gives the parents a large dowry (and this still happens in some parts of the world :O)

  • -3

    yasukuni

    @Dennis Bauer Yes, I don't think we need to change the nudity laws. I don't think people should have the right to walk around naked in the parks, next to Hachiko, or on the trains. And I really think that if you wanted to change the laws to be more natural or modern, you wouldn't have the majority on your side. If you want to try it, go ahead. But you will find that most people think public nudity laws are okay the way they are. Same with gay marriage.

    The rest of my post.
    1. The onus is on the gay lobby to prove why we have to change the laws on marriage. Not for me to prove to you. and 2. I made the point that Kitano isn't alone in thinking gay marriage is strange. A highly educated young woman I just talked to didn't even know that people seriously wanted to allow gay marriage. Obviously, she's japanese and hasn't been exposed to the very recent attempts at changing everything.

    "if 2 people love each other, i don't see why they cannot get married." Well, no matter how much they love each other, siblings can't, parents can't marry their children, and we have rules about age of consent. - and most countries have laws against people marrying the same sex. You can't see why in some cases people can't get married? Maybe you don't think hard enough.

    "ok then let's get back to marry of the eight year old girl to an old dude as long as he gives the parents a large dowry "

    Okay, so now you want to go back in time. :0) I don't. I think the laws are great as they are. I can't actually remember that there was a time in the US where 8 yr olds got married because of dowries.

    See that's the interesting thing here. Kitano gives a funny example, and the gay attack hounds go into a rage and talk about not watching his movies. And some even started bonfires of his DVDS.......sick! But to prove their point, these enraged gay activists talk about old men giving dowries to marry 8yr olds.

    Maybe we could keep this discussion to the 21st century?

    Calm down gays ..I mean guys...

  • -2

    yasukuni

    @Dennis And the rest of your post?????

  • -4

    yasukuni

    @Thomas "To compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia is ridiculous and disingenuous."

    To compare opposition to changing the current definition of marriage to old men giving dowries in order to marry 8yr old girls is also ridiculous and disingenuous.

  • 1

    Bluebris

    A highly educated young woman I just talked to didn't even know that people seriously wanted to allow gay marriage.

    Wow, a Japanese with no idea about things happening beyond these shores? It must have been difficult to track her down....

  • -2

    oikawa

    It is interesting how the anti-gay marriage brigade have displayed little ability to engage in intellectual argument surrounding the appropriate issues on this thread. Reassuring at the same time though, as it would be genuinely worrying if someone who had actually conceived some well thought out, strong anti-gay marriage arguments, had appeared. As it is it feels like being in the 17th century witnessing the last vestiges of the Flat Earth Society.

    The funny thing is is that I can understand them to a large extent. I probably used to share their feelings in the past too. The problem is, when you have something that has certain parameters limiting it's definition so strictly, it is incredibly hard to let go of those well defined limits. It simply doesn't make sense in the mind. Gay marriage to some people is like being told one day that the sun is blue, that 1 plus 1 is 15, that your mum is your sister etc, etc. It is completely different from your lifelong concept of reality and if you don't accept it when first told it's true you probably never will change your mind. In this case marriage=a man and a woman, and that is that. It is probably the most defining aspect of what marriage is, and changing that conception after a lifetime of thinking that way can be incredibly hard. That is why all the arguments against have been so poor, because they are based on feelings and intuition so ingrained that the urge to fight against something which goes against that reality is immensely strong, but which actually have a logical basis so weak they would be rejected immediately by the same individual otherwise.

    I can understand how it goes against many people's conceptions, especially visualisations, of marriage, but it must be realised that those conceptions are just that, conceptions. You have to strip away everything you think, and think you know, about marriage and work from the bottom up, considering what marriage is and who it is for. Then you can discuss things genuinely knowing why you think what you think.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Yeah, I can't really be bothered because these arguments are so bad... lol

    oikawa

    Reassuring at the same time though, as it would be genuinely worrying if someone who had actually conceived some well thought out, strong anti-gay marriage arguments, had appeared.

    Well I if there WAS a good argument against it, then sure, I would accept that. But alas, I have never actually heard a good argument against it...

  • -1

    chris-kun

    I don't care if he is a comedian, the comment was OFF. I just wont listen to those comments specially from older people (I respect everybody's opinion), because they are adjusted to the old ways: where you marry being a "virgin" and the man goes to work and women stay home and raise their children and take care of the house.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    yasukuni:

    There is nothing scientifically wrong with letting people ride the Yamanote Line naked. WHy is that wrong? It's perfectly natural, shouldn't offend anyone, and isn't hurting anyone.

    Well that could be seen as indecent exposure or sexual harassment. But you know, there are places where nudity is more tolerated. In Europe, nudity isn't really that big of a deal.

    What this has got to do with gay marriage, I don't know.

    One thing is for sure: Dress codes are arbitrarily defined. In one society, showing a woman's hair is considered "obscene", while in another society being completely naked is totally fine.

    yasukuni:

    Funny, I was just talking to a recent graduate of a prestigious university about this issue. She honestly told me she had never even thought about it.

    Well you see, you're still making your arguments from very bogus viewpoints.

    Your arguments are: "A graduate of a prestigious university has said this, so it must be right"

    or "The majority thinks such and such, so it must be right, it must be followed".

    Albert Einstein can say that gay-marriage is wrong, but that doesn't mean that he's right. Einstein was no doubt a very smart man and he was right in a lot of things, but it's doubtful that he can really say anything about gay marriage. He was a physicist, it doesn't make him an authority on gay marriage.

    So what does a "recent graduate of a prestigious university" know anything about gay marriage? Nothing. If she has never thought about gay marriage, then she has never thought about gay marriage. It doesn't really mean anything.

    And as for "the majority thinks so and so..." Well again, the majority used to think that the Earth was flat.

    yasukuni:

    See, you think only fools would be against gay marriage - but I'm telling you that the vast majority have never even thought about it. She actually thought I was joking when I said that many people were upset about Kitano's comment and how gay marriage should be seen as normal.

    People don't talk about gay marriage in Japan? Well, there's a surprise... People in Japan never talked about nuclear energy before 2011, either. People in Japan never really talk about much of anything.

    yasukuni:

    1. The onus is on the gay lobby to prove why we have to change the laws on marriage. Not for me to prove to you. and 2. I made the point that Kitano isn't alone in thinking gay marriage is strange.
    1. Homosexuality is consensual, it harms no one, not even oneself, unlike incest or pedophilia or bestiality or whatever.
    2. If two consenting adults want to get married, and they harm no one, then they should be able to. Incest potentially has negative consequences. Animals and children can't give consent.

    yasukuni:

    A highly educated young woman I just talked to didn't even know that people seriously wanted to allow gay marriage.

    "A highly educated young woman" is not the authority on everything. She could be wrong.

    Obviously, she's japanese and hasn't been exposed to the very recent attempts at changing everything.

    Obviously.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    yasukuni:

    There is nothing scientifically wrong with letting people ride the Yamanote Line naked. WHy is that wrong? It's perfectly natural, shouldn't offend anyone, and isn't hurting anyone.

    Oh yeah, and the biggest argument against is that it's unsanitary. You wouldn't want people touching against each other with their genitals or people sitting down on seats with their bare bottoms.

  • -3

    yasukuni

    Thomas, yeah and the people who want to have the right to ride trains nude would say that they will bring towels and they are cleaner than the dirty clothed people.

    I'm saying that any ridiculous things can be promoted on the basis that animals sometimes do it, it's natural, that appeals to tradition are invalid.

    But, I don't see why you are so upset. Gay marriage will be accepted soon. I don't doubt that. The majority of people are too scared of being vilified and parodied and attacked.

    Your bullying tactics work.

  • 1

    Dennis Bauer

    @yasukuni

    strange it is normally the gay people that are

    being vilified and parodied and attacked

    and my example of an 8 year old being married off was in reply of someone saying that the marriage rules should not be changed (didn't Abraham had a few wives?)

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    If they brought towels, then wouldn't that defeat the purpose of being nude?

    I'm saying that any ridiculous things can be promoted on the basis that animals sometimes do it, it's natural, that appeals to tradition are invalid.

    1. I never said that homosexuality is valid because animals do it. In fact it was you who brought the "It's not natural, therefore it's wrong" argument, not me.
    2. I never said that traditions were always bad, but it also doesn't mean that traditions are always good.

    But, I don't see why you are so upset. Gay marriage will be accepted soon. I don't doubt that. The majority of people are too scared of being vilified and parodied and attacked.

    If they don't want to be "attacked", then maybe they should come up with a good, solid reason for opposing same-sex marriage. So far, they haven't, because they're all based on prejudiced reasons.

    Your bullying tactics work

    If anyone is bullying, then it has always been the anti-gay crowd. Gay people are often bullied and harassed all over the world.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    @Thomas Anderson:

    That is by LAW. By definition, you can not marry an animal, just as you can not marry a child. How is this difficult to understand...?

    Oh yes it's the law - got it! Wait a minute... are you referring to the same "law" that would have to be changed to allow gay marriage? I guess you didn't think through that little inconsistency in your argument. This is exactly Kitano's point. Laws change when a new rationale is made to change them. Allowing homosexual marriage removes the impediment to all other types of marriage. You can always say that, "well, if two men can marry, why not three men? Limiting marriage to only one man and one women is just arbitrary - let's carry this on to it's logical conclusion and allow anyone to marry to anyone else. As long as it's between consenting adults (however we decide to define "consenting" and "adults").

    Ok, so can people stop subtly comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality now? Thanks.

    You may have forgotten but this topic has the word "bestiality" in it's title. So no, I will not stop discussing it. Furthermore, bestiality and pedophilia are sexual behaviors just like heterosexual and homosexual sex are. When discussing sexuality there is nothing wrong with discussing other aspects of the subject.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but something doesn't have to be genetic in order to be born with something. Something can just happen with random chance and mutation.

    Behavior is based in a persons psychology which can be affected by many things such as body chemistry. So in a sense, there could be something to the idea that sexuality is affected by a person's chemical balance (hormones, chemical makeup, etc.). People can be predisposed to certain things (such as diseases) but that is based on DNA You make a good point here. I'll have to think about this a bit more.

    Does it really matter whether it is a choice or not? Why can't two consenting adults just marry whomever they want? We're talking about two consenting adults, not adults or children so stop comparing same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality already...!

    It matters because many people are making it the primary justification for homosexual marriage. Putting that aside, most people have no problem with homosexuals having the freedom to have any sort of private relationship they like. I think that everyone, including homosexuals, should be able to enter into a private personal contract with another person or multiple other people that gives them all of the financial, estate, hospital visitation, and other rights that people that consider themselves a family can have. Marriage is different because it's a social model that is the very foundation of a healthy society. As marriage has deteriorated over the last 50 years in most first world countries, it has had a terrible human price. I also take it personally - I am already married and I do now want my marriage being associated with a sexual practice that to me is not that far off from bestiality or pedophilia (this is my sincere and strongly held feeling).

    If the constitution protects basic human rights and the right to pursue happiness, then not being able to marry whomever they want (a consenting ADULT) would be contradictory to the constitution. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Well, this statement covers a lot of situations that I would suppose even you would object to. It's just not as simple as two consenting adults. First of all, why just two? Why not make the exception for polygamists and bisexuals that are capable of loving both men and women at the same time? What about related people? It's sounds disgusting to consider but mothers do have consensual sexual relationships with sons, fathers with daughters, nephews with aunts, etc. It's not all that common but assuming they are consenting adults these would also be Constitutional under your interpretation. I realize that the imperative for gay marriage supporters is acceptance. I can tell you that I do not accept the lifestyle, but I accept the rights of all people to be free to do whatever they wish. But even Libertarians understand that freedom is not unlimited concept. I fully understand that the idea of marriage as it is defined in the traditional sense is to a certain extent arbitrary. But the boundaries were created for a good social reason. Making exceptions then opens marriage to being logically and rationally taken apart further.

    So? You're missing the point here. Say, I find ketchup disgusting, but that doesn't mean that I should ban people from eating ketchup. What I'm saying is that just because you find something disagreeable, is no reason to outright BAN people from doing things.

    Again, this isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. We aren't talking about something as trivial as what kind of condiment you or I prefer. This is a effort to fundamentally change a foundational component of human society. The main thing I would like to get across to you is that as disagreeable as I find homosexuality to be, I do not wish to try and force anyone that is homosexual to stop being what they are just because people like myself disagree with it. I just don't want it foisted upon me as a fait accompli. Heterosexuals have a thing called marriage that most of us like just the way it is. There is no reason why homosexuals cannot have their own thing that is every bit as relevant to you - but that doesn't force me to be a part of.

    ??? People are allowed to practice S&M, if they want. Straight couples who practice S&M can get married. People are allowed to have sex in any way that they want. Who is stopping people from doing those things?? Nobody. I wasn't aware that S&M and all the other things were illegal!

    That's not the point I was making with respect to S&M and other sexual practices. I brought it up to say that there is no reason to make S&M (or any other particular sexual practice) the basis for marriage. Any particular sexual proclivity is irrelevant. Couples do not have to state that hey have a particular type of sex in order to qualify to be married. Just having one man and one woman is enough.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    @Wolfpack

    Sigh, like I said allowing same-sex marriage will not fundamentally change the definition of marriage. You still can't marry a child or an animal or have more than one spouse.

    Saying that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality then polygamy then pedophilia then necrophilia etc etc... is nothing but a cheap slippery slope argument. There is no proof that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to any of those things mentioned.

    You may have forgotten but this topic has the word "bestiality" in it's title. So no, I will not stop discussing it. Furthermore, bestiality and pedophilia are sexual behaviors just like heterosexual and homosexual sex are. When discussing sexuality there is nothing wrong with discussing other aspects of the subject.

    What has that got to do with anything? Stop comparing homosexuality to bestiality, period, because it's offensive and it's wrong. Bestiality/pedophilia and homosexuality have almost nothing in common just as much as they don't have much in common with heterosexuality.

    Marriage is different because it's a social model that is the very foundation of a healthy society. As marriage has deteriorated over the last 50 years in most first world countries, it has had a terrible human price.

    Your opinion, not a fact. All the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, such as Canada, Sweden, etc are not burning down.

    First of all, why just two? Why not make the exception for polygamists and bisexuals that are capable of loving both men and women at the same time? What about related people?

    I think that naturally there are many pros and cons of allowing polygamy, but I'm not going there (yet) and I'm not discussing it because it's kind of irrelevant to same-sex marriage.

    As for incest, inbreeding is bad. In some countries there are no laws against incest.

    This is a effort to fundamentally change a foundational component of human society.

    The question is, is it a change for worse or for better? There is no proof that allowing same-sex marriage is bad for the society. Taking away the freedoms of others when they harm no one is wrong and immoral.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    @Bluebris:

    So accepting them in the sense that society can't get rid of them, but not accepting them as being equal to the heterosexuals?

    I can accept that people get sexual satisfaction out of inflicting pain on one another but I wouldn't make that the basis for changing marriage laws. Come one - "get rid of them" - what kind of comment is that?

    Wolfpack, what would you do if your own child was gay? Would their mere presence offend you as you think about their "abhorrent" homosexual acts of intimacy? Would you really want them to be treated as less than other people because of something they have no control over?

    Well, I don't have to face that situation. However, I do admit that it could have happened. I don't hate homosexuals. I also do not hate people whose lifestyle includes pain, latex, or foot fetishes either. I don't want gay/lesbians to be treated as other than human beings. How does not allowing homosexual marriage amount to treating people any worse than not allowing three people to be married to each other simultaneously, or an 18 year old male to marry a 16 year old female? I could just as easily make the case that this is also arbitrary and hateful?

    Look, homosexuals have their own thing. They have something that I cannot possibly have. They can get another title for their commitment to one another. The word "marriage" represents a commitment between one man and one woman. Some other word can be used for something very similar but representing the union between two same sex consenting adults. Choose whatever word you like - except marriage.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    @Wolfpack Wow that's some nonsensical twisted logic right there.

    I can accept that people get sexual satisfaction out of inflicting pain on one another but I wouldn't make that the basis for changing marriage laws.

    Nobody is asking to.

    The word "marriage" represents a commitment between one man and one woman.

    To you. Not to everyone. Not to the people in the countries where gay marriages are allowed.

    Your whole argument contradicts itself. You say you believe gays should be treated equally, but then contradict it by saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry. How exactly is that equality? And don't ramble about polygamy or any such nonsense, because none of that is relevant to this discussion. The slippery slope argument is nonsense.

    At the core, you're not comfortable with gay lifestyles, so YOU think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. That's not equality, that's discrimination against people who you see as different to you. Do you even understand what the word "equality" means?

  • 2

    Wolfpack

    Thomas Anderson:

    Sigh, like I said allowing same-sex marriage will not fundamentally change the definition of marriage.

    You are so wrong about that. I know you are just seeking society's approval for homosexuality; but I couldn't disagree with you more about how homosexual marriage completely changes the definition of marriage. The fact that traditional marriage is limited to one unrelated adult man and woman is based solely on human experience and tradition. I am not religious so I won't even get into that. The rules for traditional marriage are something organic to nearly all cultures and are similar among most all races and religions. There are notable exceptions or course but until very recently there has been near unanimous agreement that same sex marriage is not "marriage".

    There is no proof that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to any of those things mentioned.

    Perhaps. But I believe it to be much more likely that overturning the fundamental interpretation of marriage will result in a logical evolution of marriage that offers up ever more "equality" for other potential types of marriage that are currently illegal. If homosexual marriage is legal then I can think of no logical reason to ban polygamy. Can you? If homosexual marriage is legal, can you give me any logical arguments against polygamy?

    I don't think supporters of homosexual marriage care much about the consequences of ending "traditional marriage" - they just want acceptance for themselves or their political views.

  • -4

    Bluebris

    I don't think supporters of homosexual marriage care much about the consequences of ending "traditional marriage" - they just want acceptance for themselves or their political views.

    Those monsters! How dare they expect to be treated as equal to heterosexuals!

  • 1

    Wolfpack

    Bluebris:

    To you. Not to everyone. Not to the people in the countries where gay marriages are allowed.

    No kidding...

    How exactly is that equality?

    How is it not equality if a person is able to enter into a private contract that offers them all of the legal rights they need? What you want is to force me to associate homosexual marriage to my marriage. You want me to accept homosexuality - but hey, I don't - so get over it already.

    And don't ramble about polygamy or any such nonsense, because none of that is relevant to this discussion.

    No, it is absolutely relevant to this discussion. You want to expand the definition of marriage for just homosexuals but no one else. Why? Once traditional marriage is overturned then there are no logical barriers to many other types of marriage. That is Kitano's point.

    I don't think you care about the consequences of opening up marriage by ending it in the traditional sense. You don't want to talk about it because it is an argument against what you want. If society suffers as a result, who cares - right?

  • -2

    Bluebris

    Once traditional marriage is overturned then there are no logical barriers to many other types of marriage.

    That would be "traditional" marriage as it currently stands then would it? Because you do realise that the marriage laws have been changed many times over the past few hundred years?

    I don't think you care about the consequences of opening up marriage by ending it in the traditional sense. You don't want to talk about it because it is an argument against what you want.

    I'm happy to talk about it, but you haven't given me anything to think about. You just repeat yourself. You don't like it so it shouldn't be. Can you use your great wisdom and tell me what the consequences would be? Children don't care about whether people are straight or gay, so people suggesting it would be terrible for them to see gay weddings are just talking nonsense. What are these great consequences you can foresee?

    In the past it was traditional for people to have slaves, for people to marry children. Some traditions, can, should, and do, change.

  • -4

    Владимир Слон

    It's so sad he said that. I'm sure Pedosexual and Necrosexual marriage must come first. Only after that will be Zoosexual's time. We, Pedosexuals, were wronged and discriminated so many years, we have right to be rehabilitated and walk tall!

  • -2

    Dennis Bauer

    The whole discussion is moot, if in Japan an Otaku wants to marry a DS date game character or his anime pillow, then why is there opposition to gay marriage that sounds to me more natural than wanting to marry a non living thing

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    @Wolfpack:

    You are so wrong about that. I know you are just seeking society's approval for homosexuality; but I couldn't disagree with you more about how homosexual marriage completely changes the definition of marriage.The fact that traditional marriage is limited to one unrelated adult man and woman is based solely on human experience and tradition. I am not religious so I won't even get into that. The rules for traditional marriage are something organic to nearly all cultures and are similar among most all races and religions.

    Well just so that you know, I'm not gay myself so no, I'm not "seeking approval". And it seems to me that you're reiterating the same old arguments again and again...:

    "It's natural, therefore it is right/wrong" "People have been doing the same thing for thousands of years across all cultures, therefore it is right/wrong"

    But you didn't exactly PROVE why it's right or wrong or why it should be followed or not followed. It all boils down to: 1. Appeal to nature and 2. Appeal to tradition.

    We used to think that the definition of marriage was (also) a union between an adult and a child. We used to think that the definition of marriage was a union of two adults within the same race. But those meanings have now changed.

    Perhaps. But I believe it to be much more likely that overturning the fundamental interpretation of marriage will result in a logical evolution of marriage that offers up ever more "equality" for other potential types of marriage that are currently illegal.

    Again, you're just rehashing the same old slippery slope argument. If say, pedophilia can be legalized, they why don't they just do it now? There's no need for allowing same-sex marriage in the first place!

    If homosexual marriage is legal then I can think of no logical reason to ban polygamy. Can you? If homosexual marriage is legal, can you give me any logical arguments against polygamy?

    If you can't think of any reason to be against polygamy, then why shouldn't polygamy be legalized?

    I don't think you care about the consequences of opening up marriage by ending it in the traditional sense. You don't want to talk about it because it is an argument against what you want. If society suffers as a result, who cares - right?

    So what IS the consequence? You haven't given any proof or data on why allowing same-sex marriage would be disastrous.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    @valued_customer:

    It is neither. They are all comparable in the sense that they can be logically compared. For example, all three were once on the list of paraphilias, although homosexuality has since been erased. Also, all three have been permitted and forbidden at different points in time in different places. And the most common reason for banning them has been personal disgust. They are comparable. But they are certainly not the same.

    It's a common logical error. Having some things in common do not mean that they are the same. If we talked about things that have in common, then we can eventually find that everything has in common with SOMETHING.

    It's like saying that:

    Heterosexuality is sexuality Pedophilia is sexuality Therefore, heterosexuality is pedophilia

    So they can not be logically compared, because that would be logically erroneous.

    No one suggested that. What they suggested is that opening that door brings us closer to opening others. And its true. But its also irrelevant. You don't curb rights on the idea that "maybe" it will lead to something bad.

    Like I said, it's a slippery slope argument. If pedophilia and marrying animals can be legalized, then they would do it now. There's no need for legalizing same-sex marriage.

  • 0

    HokoOnchi

    MolenirMay. 19, 2012 - 05:06AM JST

    Your question has nothing to do with my comment. What Beat thinks about homosexuals is his business and his right, what he says in public, on the other hand, should be tempered by the position he holds as a public figure. Maybe he can't cut it in that regard.

    So what you're saying is, if he doesn't have the 'proper' position, he should not have the right to speak?

    Where did I write that he has no right to speak? If he does not approve of homosexual marriage all he had to do was say that it is a difficult question for him to consider or whatever is the appropriate type of conflict avoidance statement that is used but which then is immediately understood to mean that he is opposed to it.

  • 0

    HokoOnchi

    YuriyChekalinMay. 19, 2012 - 06:11AM JST

    What Beat thinks about homosexuals is his business and his right, what he says in public, on the other hand, should be tempered by the position he holds as a public figure.
    

    He obviously was asked about his personal opinion. He stated his personal opinion. Should he have lied about his personal opinion just to make some gaijin from JT board happy? I personally do not think so.

    Regardless of whether I am gaijin as you like to think also being as irrelevant as your objection to my comment based upon misreading what I said ...

    I did not say that he should say nothing. I used the word "tempered" in my original post for a reason. That he should have toned down his language.

    The Japanese language is chock full of ways to say something gray that gets the point across anyway, as far as his personal opinion goes. He didn't do that and I found fault with him as I do others who are public figures who are incautious of how they reply to reporters and their questions.

  • -2

    Patrick Hagger

    ALL deviancy is the same

  • -1

    yasukuni

    "all he had to do was say that it is a difficult question for him to consider"

    So if you are pro-gay marriage you can call those against hateful bigots who are the same type who supported slavery and threaten to boycott movies and burn DVDS. But if you are against, you have to become a girlyman and say it's "difficult to consider"?

    Maybe it's not difficult to consider for him.

    Go Beat.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    "A girlyman"? Seriously...?

  • -3

    yasukuni

    ""A girlyman"? Seriously...?"

    @Thomas - what do you think? :)

  • 0

    Seamus78

    of it makes me laugh at some of the idiotic messages above.

    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

    NetNinja

    Hey Ted, what is NORMAL? You've got a reference point or a special compass to figure that out. Did everybody get a copy of the book you are reading? I've been in Japan for a long time and I haven't seen normal yet.

    Did you ever imagine for once that people are the way they are NATURALLY? They aren't trying to be.....THEY ARE. They don 't have to hide anything for you or me. You have a wire in your backyard and they have a wire in their backyard. If they are hanging out all panties or all undies THAT's their business and they have a right to air whatever they please.
    Seems like you would like to muzzle them. You're asking them to simply be quiet and go away.

    Truth be told, there are misconceptions on both side of the fence. However there's one fact that remains. They, GLAAD, are here, they exist, they aren't going anywhere, they demand an audience and they're going to have their day.

    Whether or not you choose to associate with them is your business. You will NOT deny two consenting adults the right to a legal union based on their gender.

  • 2

    zichi

    Ted Barrera,

    Some homosexuals call anyone against their lifestyle bigots or homophobes, when in fact they are not. Simply disagreeing with one's lifestyle choice is not a cause to be branded a bigot and a homophobe.

    I'm not GAY, but I can recognise homophobia when i see it. Disagreeing with "lifestyle choice"? I think whether a person is homosexual or hetrosexual it's not about a lifestyle choice. It's about living your life according to the way you were born. Let's turn the clock back to a time when GAYS were not free to express their sexuality and had to hid it from others for the fear of prosecution. At least in some countries we ahve moved on from that. You may not like someone for whatever reason but if you dislike someone just because they are GAY, then I would say you are homophobic. If you say you are not against homosexuality but prevent people from enjoying a full GAY relationship, including opposing same sex marriage, then you are homophobic.

    I know a lot of incredibly nice members of the LGBT community, with whom I have nothing but respect for, ........

    I don't believe you?

  • 2

    zichi

    Ted Barrera

    Want people to stop hating you? Actually act normal. Be NORMAL. If you're a man, gay or straight, stop trying so hard to act more feminine and sensitive than a woman. If you're a woman, stop trying to be more butch than a man. And for the sake of everyone around you, pro-gay or anti-gay alike, stop trying to force people who don't care to change and keep your sexuality to yourself.

    What is "normal" because your definition isn't my idea. These are not the words of someone who understands homosexuality nor someone with any GAY relatives or friends. When did you last have a GAY friend over for dinner?

  • 2

    zichi

    NetNinja,

    I agree with your comment.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    Some homosexuals call anyone against their lifestyle bigots or homophobes, when in fact they are not. Simply disagreeing with one's lifestyle choice is not a cause to be branded a bigot and a homophobe.

    You could be right. But saying "I'm not comfortable with gay marriage or gay lifestyles" without being able to give any reason why other than tradition is going to be taken as bigotry and homophobia. I haven't seen one single comment on this thread giving a valid reason other than "tradition," "it's not normal," or "it will damage society" and my old favourite "what about the damage it will do to children." Nobody is asking people who are against gay marriage to go to the weddings or watch the honeymoon videos. They're just being asked to be more accepting and treat people equally. (By the way, telling people to "act normal" (whatever that means) is not really treating people equally.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Simply disagreeing with one's lifestyle choice is not a cause to be branded a bigot and a homophobe.

    The keyword here is choice. Homosexuality for the most part is not choice.

    If you're a man, gay or straight, stop trying so hard to act more feminine and sensitive than a woman. If you're a woman, stop trying to be more butch than a man.

    Yes, how dare people live in a different way than what you would approve of. I didn't realize that you were the authority on how people should live.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please keep the discussion civil and do not post anything unless you are tolerant of opposing views.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    Simply disagreeing with one's lifestyle choice is not a cause to be branded a bigot and a homophobe.

    "Disagree" is completely the wrong word here. It's like saying 'I "disagree" with the colour of your eyes' or ' I "disagree with your shoe size.'

    It's not just semantics. It's a way of expressing intolerance while appearing, on the surface, rational and reasonable.

  • -1

    ubikwit

    zichi

    I'm not GAY, but I can recognise homophobia when i see it. Disagreeing with "lifestyle choice"? I think whether a person is homosexual or hetrosexual it's not about a lifestyle choice. It's about living your life according to the way you were born. Let's turn the clock back to a time when GAYS were not free to express their sexuality and had to hid it from others for the fear of prosecution.

    i gather that you support the "nature" side in the "nature vs nurture" debate. i'd say that the jury is still out, and maybe permanently deadlocked on that question.

    At least in some countries we ahve moved on from that. You may not like someone for whatever reason but if you dislike someone just because they are GAY, then I would say you are homophobic. If you say you are not against homosexuality but prevent people from enjoying a full GAY relationship, including opposing same sex marriage, then you are homophobic.

    in this comment, however, you seem to be saying that no matter what reason someone is against same sex marriage, that they are, by nature--apparently--a homophobe. am i wrong?

    is this term "homophobe" a psychological characteristic of a persons "nature"? or can it be it a contextually defined attribute?

    what do you mean by

    a full GAY relationship

    i think it can be reduced to the private matter of sexual relations between mutually consenting adults, versus the traditional social institution of marriage that has nurtured society through the ages.

    it seems possible to consider the same sex marriage movement not to be a socially progressive movement, but a regressive movement based on an aberrant notion of individualism.

    i don't want to be accused of attempting to deny anyone of their rights, but the way in which those rights are being defined seems skewed.

    individuals do not exist in a vacuum, and society has been evolving over the course of thousands of years.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    Well anyway, the government has no right to say that the gay people can't get married, especially if they harm no one. You may have a religious or personally held belief - great, but keep it to your self and don't force it on others. Government and religion should be kept separate. Government has no right to dictate people's lifestyles - especially if they harm no one.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    That's my own personal opinion and I respect that others will disagree with me, but to me, from an evolutionary biological standpoint, Darwinian theory suggests that if there was indeed a homosexual gene, then that gene should have been extinct long ago. The fact that there are still homosexuals around (and there is nothing wrong with that, so keep your pants on), suggests that it is not genetic, but a lifestyle choice.

    Sorry but I find this ridiculous. I'm no expert on evolution or genetics, but something doesn't have to be genetic in order to be born with something. It could be that homosexuality plays a subtle but an important role, such as population control.

    What you're creating is a pseudo either/or argument, a false dichotomy. This line of thinking seems unscientific and lacking in imagination...

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Then how can animals be homosexual? (Yes, there are documented facts...) Are you saying that animals can choose a lifestyle? Doesn't that seem ridiculous?

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Gay people have different brains, slightly different physiology (such as the length of their ring fingers), than straight people. It seems ridiculous to me that homosexuality is merely a "lifestyle choice".

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    There was a psychiatrist who tried to "cure" homosexuality (and he wasn't even anti-gay, he was the one who was responsible for removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders), and the results were disastrous. He has recently apologized for his mistake.

  • 3

    Thomas Anderson

    Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors:

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

    Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

  • 1

    Bluebris

    And with that little nugget of wisdom, I'll leave this discussion for more important matters.

    Oh no. Please stay and teach us about normal behaviour. I'm sure we're all dying to know.

  • 2

    Thomas Anderson

    Please don't compare homosexuals to animals Thomas.

    Uh, I'm comparing homosexuality in animals and humans, not homosexuals to animals. Since we are also basically animals created by nature, this comparison is somewhat useful and informative.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    Animals have an innate instinct to reproduce. They will therefore attempt to reproduce with anything that they can stimulate their sex organs with.

    Not true, Bonobos use their sexual organs for something other than reproduction, such as masturbating each other. And yes, Bonobos frequently engage in homosexual behavior.

  • 1

    zichi

    @ubikwit

    i gather that you support the "nature" side in the "nature vs nurture" debate. i'd say that the jury is still out, and maybe permanently deadlocked on that question.

    Yes, I accept that homosexuals are born GAY and not nurtured. The GAY people who I known and had as friends knew they were homosexual from an early age, but most of those had to suppress their nature because it hadn't been accepted by the society we lived in (Britain) and even less accepted by families.   In the 1950's America pressured Britain not to accept homosexuality and there were a number of court cases involving aristocrats at least one of whom, got prison time.

    in this comment, however, you seem to be saying that no matter what reason someone is against same sex marriage, that they are, by nature--apparently--a homophobe. am i wrong?

    Basically that is what I'm saying. The majority of people who oppose same sex marriage or civil union, when pressed, also oppose homosexuality. Any phobia is an irrational fear. The fear of accepting GAY marriage because its against religion, or it will change the institution of marriage, or any of the other reasons I've read for opposing it are all based on irrational fear.

    is this term "homophobe" a psychological characteristic of a persons "nature"? or can it be it a contextually defined attribute?

    A psychological characteristic nurtured by the person's family and environment.

    what do you mean by a full GAY relationship

    One in which GAY couples are able to enjoy all the same freedoms what are available to others in the same society, like marriage.

    i think it can be reduced to the private matter of sexual relations between mutually consenting adults, versus the traditional social institution of marriage that has nurtured society through the ages.

    One small paragraph can't cover the range of possibilities nor can I fully answer it without writing a book. "mutually consenting adults" differs from country to country. In Britain, the age you can have sex is 16-years, but you don't become an adult until 18-years? Marriage is not solely about sex and not even the central pillar. It's about people who love each other and want to enter into a relationship of mutual respect and support for each other. The marriage may or may not create children.

    "Marriage that has nurtured society through the ages". Really depends on which society and which ages you want to refer to, but legal marriage in most western countries has only been around for a couple of hundred years. Marriage based on religions or cultures has been around a lot longer.

    The principle of marriage being "one man, one woman" is only found in those societies which are based on Christianity. I think that's the definition used the most on this post. So I will limit myself to a response on that.

    It wasn't that long ago when a man was able to marry a young girl of 12-years. Women had no rights in these Christian based marriages, nor were  they able to hold property or vote. Women were unable to divorce their husbands.

    In the west, the institution of marriage evolved into its present forms, changing those lack of freedoms for women into a marriage based on equal terms.

    The institution of marriage should further evolve to include same sex marriage.

    it seems possible to consider the same sex marriage movement not to be a socially progressive movement, but a regressive movement based on an aberrant notion of individualism.

    All opposed people have had to fight for the freedoms they deserve, just like women fighting for the vote, or equal terms in marriage.

    i don't want to be accused of attempting to deny anyone of their rights, but the way in which those rights are being defined seems skewed. individuals do not exist in a vacuum, and society has been evolving over the course of thousands of years.

    Just like any movement which is fighting for equal rights those outside of it will see it in so many different ways. Like society is evolving so at least all people within the same society will also have equal rights and freedoms.

  • 2

    zichi

    @Ted Berrera,

    Darwinian theory suggests that if there was indeed a homosexual gene, then that gene should have been extinct long ago. The fact that there are still homosexuals around (and there is nothing wrong with that, so keep your pants on), suggests that it is not genetic, but a lifestyle choice.

    I'm not sure, that homosexuality would be because of a gene? I don't think it's that simple. Why are males born with nipples? They have no use or function? Inside the womb, the body of the child develops but I think one of the last decisions made by nature, is the sex of the child, hence males having nipples. That decision is made after the nipples are made.

    Children are born who late discover they are attracted to the opposite sex, and that would be the majority but there are also those born who discover they are attracted to the same sex, others who are attracted equally to both sexes, and transsexuals who feel and know they were born in the wrong body.

    I don't see how any of that could be a "life style choice" has you have commented many times. There are those who suppress their true feelings, usually out of some kind of fear. Many transsexuals will refuse to recognise their true identity for many years, even getting married, until one day they just can't accept it anymore. How could transsexuality be just a "life style choice?"

  • -2

    cactusJack

    Beat Takeshi is a known animal lover.

  • -1

    cleo

    I think one of the last decisions made by nature, is the sex of the child, hence males having nipples.

    The sex of the child is decided at the moment of conception, when a sperm with either a Y chromosome or an X chromosome makes its way inside the egg and bonds with the X chromosome it finds in there. The reason males have nipples is that the X chromosome carries all the bits needed for femaleness, and every male has one X chromosome.

  • 2

    zichi

    cleo

    thank you for the that important info.

    But I believe that people are born with their sexuality and not a "life style choice" has stated by some.

  • -5

    ubikwit

    Thomas Anderson

    Government and religion should be kept separate. Government has no right to dictate people's lifestyles - especially if they harm no one.

    the question as to whether this will cause harm is open.

    first of all, since recorded history, there has been no "marriage" between persons of the same sex.

    the first and foremost issue is that of changing a normative aspect of the social order.

    and most importantly, that affects the socialization of children. children are impressionable in their formative years, and the exposure to such couples could very well have an undesirable impact, especially as far as heterosexual parents are concerned.

    the nature vs nurture question is not settled, and i personally am inclined to place a significant weight on nurture.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    first of all, since recorded history, there has been no "marriage" between persons of the same sex.

    Except in the ten or so countries that allow it.

    and most importantly, that affects the socialization of children. children are impressionable in their formative years.

    Yes they are. They don't start off with ideas of discriminating against people until they learn that behaviour from the people around them, predominantly from their parents.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    @ubikwit Uh, you still haven't explained why same-sex marriage would be harmful to society (other than "it will undermine the traditional social structure", which is irrelevant and it's still not harming anyone).

  • -1

    Marc Evans

    Takashi Kitano is an Outrage. As a film-maker who likes to use the metaphor of man shooting off at another man, coupled with scenes of graphic violence, one personally thinks that Mr. Kitano could direct great gay porn. As for favorite Takashi films they would be Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence, Dolls, Gohatto, and Zatoichi.

    "I'll be his dog."

  • -2

    Ah_so

    Interesting debate here on the same sex vs polygamy front.

    "Marriage" throughout cultures takes on many different forms meanings, but nearly always between men and women, either mongomy, polygamy or polyandry. As a society we have rejected the idea of polygamy or polyandry and rejected that it be between opposite sexes, and instead moving to a "two consenting adults" model.

    However, as incestuous relationships would not be a risk to children in same-sex relationships, should they be allowed?

  • -3

    ubikwit

    @Bluebris

    yes, i guess that a few countries have decided to permit it, but that doesn't mean it is right, and it remains to see how the policy plays out in those countries.

    i could be wrong, and it could amount to nothing, but i don't think that is the case.

    look at common law marriage. you don't need a ceremony or a certificate to be recognized as being married under the law in common law countries.

    i don't see a compelling need to recognize same sex marriage, and nothing i've read here has changed that view in the slightest.

    @Thomas Anderson

    the onus is not on me to prove definitively that it will, but on those seeking to overturn thousands of years of precedent to prove that it won't, and also make a compelling case as to why it should be permitted, i still don't see why civil unions don't suffice.

    what has homosexuality had to do with the institution of marriage? why should the fact that there is basically no affirmative answer to that question change the status quo? it is a radical idea without any grounds to justify the co-opting of an age old institution.

    i have mentioned the potential negative impact on children, and the increased burden that might place on parents, as in heterosexual parents, and that can lead to friction. in some places the electorate is already taking this issue very seriously, with the pro faction--being the more politically proactive in this case--scoring victories initially, followed by a couple of wins for the anti side. that is already a sign of serious schisms, and if it is such a divisive issue, i would tend to think that weighs in favor of maintaining the status quo.

    you can't sit there and pretend like there is nothing controversial about this issue, as if everyone against it were just behind the times or something. i consider myself to be among the more socially progressive people on the planet, and fairly open minded.

    so, i'm still listening.

  • -7

    yasukuni

    "others who are attracted equally to both sexes"

    So, we have to have three way bisexual marriage too right? If we don't it's hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, behind the times? And anyone who objects is a Bible-basher or enslaved to Abrahamic religion right?

    "and transsexuals who feel and know they were born in the wrong body"

    Good grief. They just "know" it? And I just "know" that that's ridiculous.

  • -8

    yasukuni

    " Any phobia is an irrational fear."

    I am not afraid of gays or gay marriage.

  • -7

    yasukuni

    @Thomas Anderson,

    We don't have to base marriage law on the sexual habits of bonobos. In fact, I totally oppose it. I don't care what bonobos do. Maybe you should go and live with the bonobos. Then you can have homosexual sex, incest, child abuse - all to your hearts content. Maybe you can even marry one if it makes you happy.

    But, leave human laws alone.

  • -6

    yasukuni

    "Gay people have different brains, slightly different physiology (such as the length of their ring fingers), than straight people. "

    I think you've been reading a little too lightly. It is simply not true that you can tell whether a person is gay or not by the length of their fingers. Are you sure you want to stand by that statement Thomas Anderson? Really?

    Also, there is no definitive test where a scientist can look at a person's brain and declare them gay. This is totally bogus. (and yes, I've read the same articles as you have about finger length). But your conclusion is not scientifically accepted.

    In fact, it's pathetic. Really. I hope you aren't a teacher of children and go around looking at their fingers and making judgements about their sexuality. If you do, please keep it to yourself.

  • -6

    johninnaha

    A homophile on another entry asked, "Why can't we be treated like normal people?"

    The obvious answer is a question.

    Why do you think two guys should be treated like a normal GUY and a normal WOMAN?

    Two GUYS don't marry!

    A guy who thinks he is a woman or a woman who thinks he is a guy is NOT NORMAL!

    The purpose of marriage is to create a family.

    Two guys can stick their "naughty bits" in any orifice they choose, but, however they do it, they are not going to create a family.

    This is not written with any "homophobic" intent.

    Anybody is free to do anything to any consenting adult that they choose.

    But WHY do they want to call it marriage?

    All that does is to degrade the status of marriage.

    Marriage =the union of a man + a woman with the purpose of creating a family.

    A man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman is childish play acting.

  • -4

    Priest

    Johninnaha

    You are just speaking common sense, as most people in Asia recognize. Homosexual people have the same rights as other people in Europe and Asia. Gay marriage is a joke but not harmful but allowing gay couples to adopt harms children. The best and only option for adoption should be a married couple, a man and a woman. Anybody, who thinks that a single parent is as good as a couple, has a serious ego problem. Children needs a stable, mixed environment.

    Gay couples that want to adopt children need to take a long hard look at themselves. The most important thing is the child`s well being.

    Ask kids what they want.

  • -1

    HokoOnchi

    yasukuniMay. 23, 2012 - 07:36AM JST

    "all he had to do was say that it is a difficult question for him to consider"

    So if you are pro-gay marriage you can call those against hateful bigots who are the same type who supported slavery and threaten to boycott movies and burn DVDS. But if you are against, you have to become a girlyman and say it's "difficult to consider"?

    Maybe it's not difficult to consider for him.

    Go Beat.

    You are accusing me of something that I did not say. Name calling gets nothing resolved. In this case, Beat was the one who was engaged in making a derogatory comment about homosexual activity. if a pro-gay right activist called Beat names, that activist also would be in the wrong.

    Beat, as a public figure, should show that he is more socially responsible than he did do.

  • -1

    HokoOnchi

    And look at Beat now. He's had to "clarify" what he meant. Or at least spin what he meant in a different way.

    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,” Kitano said, in comments relayed to AFP by one of his staff.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    @johninnaha

    Marriage =the union of a man + a woman with the purpose of creating a family.

    That is YOUR definition of marriage. If you want to keep that definition, if you want to have straight marriage, fine, but you alone do NOT decide how the laws on marriage should be written, which should be kept on completely secular principles.

    All that does is to degrade the status of marriage.

    YOUR opinion, not a fact. If you don't want to have same-sex marriage, then don't have one yourself. But do not force your views onto others.

    Forcing your views onto others = childish.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    The government should not decide how we should live our lives or what our lifestyles should be, which the anti-same sex marriage crowd is trying to attempt. The job of the government is to govern, and to protect our rights. The government can not and should not decide what our religion should be or whether we can have same-sex marriage or not.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    @ubikwit:

    i have mentioned the potential negative impact on children, and the increased burden that might place on parents, as in heterosexual parents, and that can lead to friction.

    There's no proof that homosexuality or homosexual parents harm children.

    Saying "Homosexual parents may cause friction with heterosexual parents" is ridiculous. People with different religion may cause friction among one another. People with different opinions may cause friction. The problem here is obviously intolerance and closed-mindedness, not homosexuality, religion or having different opinions.

  • -2

    showmethemoney

    There's no proof that homosexuality or homosexual parents harm children.

    Yeah, but it does, just not like you think. The tail wags the dog. Its the anti-homosexual people actually harming those children. But since they imagine themselves the knights in shining armor when it comes to protecting children, they are in total denial about that. You see, its them who ostracize the same-sex couples and both intentionally and inadvertently teach their children to do the same. The so-called "white" knights do their insulting at home and do the ostracizing on the sly. Then their kids take note and do the insulting and bullying at school to the children of the same-sex couple. Truly, it is the ones always claiming purity for the themselves who turn out to be the dirtiest among us.

  • -3

    yasukuni

    "The government can not and should not decide what our religion should be or whether we can have same-sex marriage or not."

    The government decides at what age people can get married, what substances they can inhale, where people can marry their sisters or not. And most people agree with the governments decision.

    Except Thomath and friends.

  • -3

    yasukuni

    Sorry, I meant Thomas.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    The government decides at what age people can get married, what substances they can inhale, where people can marry their sisters or not. And most people agree with the governments decision.

    Ahaha, but those are not lifestyle choices, now are they? The government has those regulations because they are potentially harmful to the citizens and they may infringe on peoples' rights. The point here is whether they are harmful to themselves or others, or not.

    Sigh...

  • -3

    johninnaha

    @johninnaha

    Marriage =the union of a man + a woman with the purpose of creating a family.

    That is YOUR definition of marriage. If you want to keep that definition, if you want to have straight marriage, fine, but you alone do NOT decide how the laws on marriage should be written, which should be kept on completely secular principles.

    No, Thomas, it's not my opinion. It's an agreement made and held by the vast majority of the population of this planet. I don't have exact figures, but I talk to a lot of people, I read and everywhere I look, this is the opinion I get.

    It's not just the definition of a single word. Marriage is set up as an institution. It has its own specialized vocabulary based on the definition above. "Husband, wife, mother in law, father in law, and so on. It's not just a matter of redefining a word, like "gay," for example, which used to mean, "carefree, flaky, with loose morals." 100 years ago, a "gay woman" was a (heterosexual) prostitute.

    You would have to change the vocabulary for the language connected with marriage and, of course, change the definition of the word marriage as well.

    For what?

    So that if one partner plays around, the other can sue for divorce and get alimony?

    So that they can adopt children created "the normal way?"

    I am not against homosexuality. I believe it's a private thing that two people have to decide for themselves. I am not against gay "marriage," it just doesn't make any sense to me. But I very definitely am against gays adopting children.

    What's it going to be like for the kid going to school? If they went to any of the schools I went to they'd get ribbed to pieces. This is apart from the very dubious effect of seeing their adopted pseudo "mother" and father sleeping together and so on.

    I don't see the point of gay marriage.

    No one on Japan Today so far has been able to come up with an argument in support of it that makes any sense. There's an awful lot of "should" and "must" and talks of "progress," but very little logic.

  • -5

    johninnaha

    Come to think of it, I wonder how many animals would like to marry Beat Takeshi.

    I can just see him walking down the aisle with a gorilla.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    zichi:

    You may not like someone for whatever reason but if you dislike someone just because they are GAY, then I would say you are homophobic.

    And if you will not enter into an intimate relationship with a person of the same gender (ie including sex) just because they are GAY, then I would say that you are homophobic. You say you are not gay so you are therefore unwilling to have a intimate relationship with another gay man/woman. Then turn around and claim other people are homophobic. Any person that is not gay or bisexual, is by definition averse to same sex relationships. Hey pot, here's your kettle!

  • -3

    Wolfpack

    Beat, as a public figure, should show that he is more socially responsible than he did do.

    Actually by speaking out, Kitano did do the socially responsible thing. Modern Liberal ideas of family are destroying societies from Europe, America, to Asia. One idiotic liberalization of family laws leads to another that just make things worse for children and for society as a whole.

  • -3

    johninnaha

    Actually by speaking out, Kitano did do the socially responsible thing. Modern Liberal ideas of family are destroying societies from Europe, America, to Asia. One idiotic liberalization of family laws leads to another that just make things worse for children and for society as a whole.

    Wolfpack. You make an excellent point.

  • 0

    cleo

    if you will not enter into an intimate relationship with a person of the same gender (ie including sex) just because they are GAY, then I would say that you are homophobic.

    This is a pretty stupid argument. Having eyes only for my husband, I find myself averse to sexual relationships with every other person on the planet, of whatever gender or race. By your argument that makes me a racist heterophobe homophobe. I think it just means I'm picky.

  • -3

    Wolfpack

    cleo

    This is a pretty stupid argument. Having eyes only for my husband, I find myself averse to sexual relationships with every other person on the planet, of whatever gender or race. By your argument that makes me a racist heterophobe homophobe. I think it just means I'm picky.

    No, it makes logical sense. If you will not enter into a relationship with a person solely because of their race, that is bigoted. I hold that view strongly as I am married to a person of a different race. So if sexuality is to be considered a civil right like race, then the same reasoning holds for it as well. Whether or not you prefer people of a certain race or not is beside the point. When someone makes a choice based on race or sexuality, that isn't being picky, it's discriminating.

    It really amazes me how little thought people put into what they decide to believe in these days.

  • -3

    Bluebris

    To be fair, all of the arguments are pretty stupid, not just that one. I especially like the "end of society and civilisation" argument, with absolutely nothing to back it up. What they mean is they're not comfortable with it because of their issues, and so they hide behind nonsensical arguments while at the same time claiming they believe in equality. All those "arguments" against gay marriage go against equality and deep down they all know it.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    Changing the core meaning of "marriage" which is between one man and one woman, means that any other current exclusion is also open to re-interpretation. If making such a change after thousands of years of holding to this fundamental belief about marriage, there is no reason to believe that many other common sense limitations to marriage will not also be discarded.

    Think about it. If any consenting adult should have the right to marry any other consenting adult, then you are tossing out many common sense exclusions. In addition, if marriage is no longer to be limited to just one man and one women, then why should marriage be limited to only two people? Of course, the same logic for same sex marriage applied to the rights of bisexuals and polygamists (who or course were born they way they are) must also require that more than two people be allowed to marry. Now marriage has just become a farce and the foundational unit of society has been broken apart. For what? A net minus benefit to society overall. It's just a dumb idea.

  • -2

    Bluebris

    @wolfpack You're using the logical fallacy argument again and again, and it just doesn't carry any weight. Nobody is fighting for polygamy.

    Also, I fail to see how the "foundational unit of society" (with a divorce rate of 50%) argument is much of a point to base your argument on.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    Bluebris:

    All those "arguments" against gay marriage go against equality and deep down they all know it.

    Then why does no one here declare the need for bisexuals to be treated equally? Or polygamists? Or rights of all of the other consenting adults that cannot be married? If the issue was equality, then these other consenting adults would also be part of the debate. They are not because it would show the obvious folly of the argument in favor of same sex marriage. That is why the Bisexual portion of the LGBT community are quite as lambs right now. Obviously, the goal is to get the first exception accepted by society and thereafter all of the other bigoted and discriminating exceptions can follow suit. Am I right?

  • -1

    Bluebris

    Wolfpack:

    It seems you're making a huge leap with absolutely nothing to back it up. You know the famous expression about assuming?

    Are you seriously telling me that if one of your children were gay you would be happy with them not being treated as equal to heterosexuals because of something they did not choose? Would you be happy to explain to them "I'm sorry you can't get married, but it's because you're not normal like most people."

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    Bluebris:

    Also, I fail to see how the "foundational unit of society" (with a divorce rate of 50%) argument is much of a point to base your argument on.

    It's sad that divorce rates are so high but the fact that divorce rates began to skyrocket in the 1960's in America and elsewhere did not occur for no reason. It is the unintended consequence of no fault divorce laws and other Liberal ideas that have left America - and increasingly Japan - in the sad shape that it is today. Same sex marriage is just part of the same rolling social disaster that the Left has as it's legacy. Poverty and tens of millions of single parent families isn't anything to be proud of. Same sex marriage will logically lead to the unraveling of the so-called "traditional" family that has been the model for culture for .. well forever.

    Yes, that does sound quite melodramatic but if past is prologue then it doesn't look good for the future - that's solely my opinion of course.

  • 2

    yasukuni

    "There's no proof that homosexuality or homosexual parents harm children."

    There is no definitive proof. Yet. What you will need to do is have thousands of gay married couples with thousands of children, and then have some criteria for testing whether they are healthy or not. And social scientists will debate the parameters of the test. And even if it could be shown in decades to come that the children aren't happy, the gay community will no doubt blame it not on the gay family but the attitudes of homophobic society towards the parents and children.

    You are right, nobody has proof. And nobody can say for sure what will happen. However, most people I know, in every country I know think that the IDEAL for a child is to have a mother and father. Of course through death and divorce some kids are raised by one parent and do very well. And some children are no doubt better off with one good parent than abusive parents etc. We all accept that. But the idea remains.

    I do not believe that it is good for two gay men to adopt and raise a girl. And they will have the right to. Many of you will disagree. That's your prerogative. Neither of us have enough hard data to argue otherwise.

    So, I opt to not change the laws. You people are wanting to change everything and begin your huge social experiment. But you don't know the outcome. But judging by the insane knee-jerk reaction to an offhanded comment by a comedian, and your lack of understanding of the way the vast majority of people in the vast majority of countries think, I don't trust you. You being the ones who want to change everything, have to first prove to us. You are the minority. Especially in Japan. You haven't even been able to change the US, and you've have Hollywood and the entertainment world working for you.

    It's just ridiculous. Men marry women. Children ideally should have a mother and father. Why is that so hard to understand? Did you have such a terrible childhood experience or something?

  • 0

    yasukuni

    Bluebris, I'm not Wolpack, but I'll answer anyway. If my child told me they were gay, I'd probably go into mourning. But whatever, no I wouldn't my son to marry a man. Hell, no!

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    @yasukuni

    There is no definitive proof. Yet.

    There's no need, there's already proof that proves otherwise. They don't harm children.

    Do you not agree that what children need most is love... which the homosexual parents can provide.

    Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

    Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

    Gay Parents Better Than Straight Parents? What Research Says: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straightsn1208659.html

    I do not believe that it is good for two gay men to adopt and raise a girl.

    I don't believe that parents should raise children with religion, but you don't see me doing anything about it.

    Perhaps what most people may find slightly disturbing, is that we have no right to tell (or force) parents how to raise their children, as long as they're not abusing them or anything.

    It's just ridiculous. Men marry women. Children ideally should have a mother and father. Why is that so hard to understand? Did you have such a terrible childhood experience or something?

    Again, that's just your opinion, not a fact. Homosexual parents do just as well as heterosexual parents. And what about single parents? Shouldn't they be able to raise children?

  • -3

    showmethemoney

    Ahaha, but those are not lifestyle choices, now are they?

    I find it amazing how you can be so true one post and be so completely inaccurate the next. Those are indeed lifestyle choices even if we are not allowed to choose them. If being illegal makes them no longer lifestyle choices, then same-sex marriage, being illegal most places, is not a lifestyle choice either.

    The government decides at what age people can get married, what substances they can inhale, where people can marry their sisters or not. And most people agree with the governments decision.

    And most people agreed in our past that homosexuals were a threat to society. Most people can be wrong. That is why we recognize the ad populum fallacy.

    The government has those regulations because they are potentially harmful to the citizens and they may infringe on peoples' rights.

    You need to do a lot better than that. EVERYTHING is "potentially" harmful. Cohabitation between men and women sometimes lead to domestic violence. But we don't ban it.

    The point here is whether they are harmful to themselves or others, or not.

    That is EXACTLY the point though you yourself don't seem to appreciate it. If a brother and sister want to get married, it harms no one.They can even have normal healthy children, but the odds are about 50/50? I can understand banning brother/sister pregnancies, but not marriage, anymore than I can understand the government refusing to recognize gay marriage.

    And no, I also cannot understand or accept the government stopping us from doing what it "thinks" harms ourselves.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    " I can understand banning brother/sister pregnancies, but not marriage, anymore than I can understand the government refusing to recognize gay marriage."

    Okay, so you are logically consistent. I applaud you. But most normal people think that brother/sister or mother/son marriage (even with no chance of pregnancy, and even if they love each other, and even if they are of legal age) should not be allowed.

    You don't understand that and resent the government interfering in people's lives. Most of the people on the planet don't understand that you don't understand.

    But, you are consistent and I respect that. Let's vote on it. But then, that doesn't work. You guys lose the vote and still keep at it.

    Instead, just come back to the real world. It's not so bad.

  • -3

    yasukuni

    "Most people can be wrong."

    Absolutely. But that's the way societies run.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    "And what about single parents? Shouldn't they be able to raise children?"

    I already addressed that. Ideally, children should have a mother and a father. In some cases, that isn't possible and I am sure there are many great single parents. I even said that.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    @Thomas. I read the three links you gave me. Did you read them all through very carefully?

    First of all they were only concerned with lesbian parents. Second, some of the studies only compared children of lesbians and separated lesbians with children of divorced heterosexual women. Thirdly, I'd be interested in how the research was done. i.e how the children of the lesbian parents were chosen.

    The numbers are limited, the studies are limited to only lesbians, and only in the US.
    And what do they test? Educational scores, self-esteem, and some studies talked about how "tolerant" the children were. So, did they ask them if they were anti-gay?

    Also of note is one man's anecdote that his lesbian parents went overboard to prove they were good parents -or better.

    I am sure there will be more studies by those (esp those who support gay marriage and gay adoption) to show that the children have the same "self-esteem" etc. btw, the reports also talked about psychological stress.

    And remember, you provided three links which were not about three different exhaustive studies. Two different reviews of research about lesbian parents.

    Sadly, those children will never know what it is to have a mother and a father. You and they and maybe some professors in some American universities don't think that matters. I do and the majority of people do. But it's going to be a difficult thing to ask those kids if they would have like to have had a mother and a father.

    Also, I noted that one of the researchers said that half of male gay couples and more than 4o% of lesbian couples had a desire to adopt and saw this as a way to take kids out of the foster care system. Ironicially, it's becoming harder for many decent heterosexual couples to adopt in some countries.

    You think it's normal for a children to grow up with two fathers, or two mothers and cite a self esteem test as proof. But like I said, it's not normal. Is that behind the times? Maybe. But most of the planet don't think so. I think two lesbian parents could easily love children and care for them. No doubt about that. I think a single man could adopt two girls and raise them well. But it's not the ideal and we don't need to change the laws.

    If I died I wouldn't want my daughter raised by two gay men. Simple. You are offended? Go burn some DVDs. :)

  • -1

    Bluebris

    You are offended? Go burn some DVDs.

    Eh?

  • 0

    yasukuni

    @Bluebris, quite a few people here were so offended and enraged by Beat Takeshi that they swore they would never see his movies again and destroy the existing ones.

    People get enraged quite easily these days

  • 0

    showmethemoney

    But most normal people think that brother/sister or mother/son marriage (even with no chance of pregnancy, and even if they love each other, and even if they are of legal age) should not be allowed.

    Then I am glad to not be "normal". Most "normal" people can't recognize a human rights violation if it slaps them across the face!

    Let's vote on it.

    Human rights issues are not things you vote on. If they were, there is no doubt many an American would own a Japanese slave or two.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    @yasukuni:

    "Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures."

    ""The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.""

    There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn't draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men "will be the best parents on average," she said.

    There's not enough research done on the children of gay men it seems, maybe because gay men are not as interested as lesbians in raising children.

    @yasukuni:

    I already addressed that. Ideally, children should have a mother and a father. In some cases, that isn't possible and I am sure there are many great single parents. I even said that.

    There's no such thing as an "ideal" way to parent. If there was then there'd only be one way to parent children. What matters in the end is whether the children are happy, have good self-esteem, have good, successful lives, etc.

    And studies show that two same-sex parents are no worse than opposite-sex parents, anyway:

    The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them.

    @yasukuni

    Sadly, those children will never know what it is to have a mother and a father.

    And you will also never know what it's like to have same-sex parents.

    Children of gay parents seem to have happy, well-rounded lives:

    One 33-year-old man with a lesbian mother told Goldberg, "I feel I'm a more open, well-rounded person for having been raised in a nontraditional family, and I think those that know me would agree. My mom opened me up to the positive impact of differences in people."

  • 0

    showmethemoney

    No one on Japan Today so far has been able to come up with an argument in support of it that makes any sense. There's an awful lot of "should" and "must" and talks of "progress," but very little logic.

    I am afraid that you and logic are not well acquainted. If you were you would realize its not up to anyone to make a convincing argument for same-sex marriage. Its up to the anti side to come up with a valid reason against.

    You see, I don't have a particular reason for wearing a T-shirt when I could be wearing a button shirt as I walk down the street. But that does not mean it should be illegal does it? You need a good reason to ban my T-shirt. I don't need a good reason to wear it.

  • -4

    johninnaha

    How on Earth can anyone talk about same sex PARENTS?

    Wake up!!!!

    Come into present time!!!

    A man and a man or a woman and a woman can NEVER POSSIBLY BE PARENTS!!!

    They might be a kind of foster parent, but that's not the same thing.

  • -1

    johninnaha

    I have worked in the field of education for the last 40 years. I am quite familiar with children in many parts of the world.

    Whoever thinks they are cute, innocent and harmless needs to put aside their fixed ideas and LOOK.

    Kids can be CRUEL. Like REALLY CRUEL.

    When it got out that little Johnny's dad was a guy and his mom was a guy too, they would RIP HIM TO PIECES.

    I don't know why, but kids are much less tolerant of this kind of thing than adults.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    A man and a man or a woman and a woman can NEVER POSSIBLY BE PARENTS!!!

    But there already are same-sex parents... and they do it well.

    Kids can be CRUEL. Like REALLY CRUEL. When it got out that little Johnny's dad was a guy and his mom was a guy too, they would RIP HIM TO PIECES.

    And it's the job of the adults to teach them to not be like, really cruel.

  • 0

    showmethemoney

    A man and a man or a woman and a woman can NEVER POSSIBLY BE PARENTS!!!

    This is like saying a gay man cannot father children, and a lesbian cannot get pregnant. Some people in same-sex marriages are parents, by both blood and adoption. But you know what? Parenting is irrelevant to the question of marriage.

  • -2

    yasukuni

    "You see, I don't have a particular reason for wearing a T-shirt when I could be wearing a button shirt as I walk down the street. But that does not mean it should be illegal does it? You need a good reason to ban my T-shirt. I don't need a good reason to wear it."

    But if your T-shirt had x-rated pictures on it and that was against the law everywhere and all normal people agreed, it's up to you to prove to the rest why you should change the laws and be able to wear anything you like because "you want to", it's natural, or "it's not hurting anyone".

    You are the one wanting to change the law. The ones trying to change the laws or the status quo are the ones who have to prove why they need to be changed. And even in the US you haven't succeeded in convincing the majority of people. Let alone come to Japan and launch some witch hunt/crusade against a comedian who made a flippant joke.

  • -2

    yasukuni

    "If they were, there is no doubt many an American would own a Japanese slave or two."

    See, that is where this argument borders on insanity. You think the majority of people are really rotten disgusting people.

    I do not believe that the majority of Americans want to change the laws so it's legal to own Japanese slaves. Not at all. You hate the idea of the majority deciding issues. I think the majority of people are wiser than you are. Yes, I'm sure you will find some people who might want to own a Japanese slave. I'm sure you might find a person who wants to marry their sister. And maybe there might be 100 couples in the US who are brother and sister and may adopt and might raise a kids who does well in school. And you might find men who want to marry men, and you might even find some females who just "know" that they are really males and think the govt should spend money to change their bodies.

    There are all kinds of weird people on the planet.

    But, the majority of people think that marriage should be between people of the opposite sex, of adult age, and who are not closely related. And the majority of people think that the IDEAL for a child is to have a mother and a father.

    You think the majority of people are strange, horrible people. But....you are wrong.

    Get over it.

  • -1

    yasukuni

    @Thomas Anderson. All you did was copy and paste a few lines from the articles. I already read the articles.

    "And you will also never know what it's like to have same-sex parents."

    .... yes. That is correct. You know thomas, sometimes you really nail it! There's hope.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    There are all kinds of weird people on the planet.

    Yeah, the bigots hiding behind nonsensical arguments, logical fallacies, and "tradition" arguments are among the weirdest.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    So, what's your point, yasukuni... You don't seem to make be making any points at all. I'm done with this, because this just goes on and on and on... so it seems like a waste of time.

    And you still don't seem to be getting that the majority does not necessarily equal right... lol. Sigh...

  • -6

    johninnaha

    showmethemoney:

    This is like saying a gay man cannot father children, and a lesbian cannot get pregnant. Some people in same-sex marriages are parents, by both blood and adoption. But you know what? Parenting is irrelevant to the question of marriage.

    A gay man cannot impregnate a gay man and a lesbian cannot get pregnant from a woman.

    And parenting is intimately connected to marriage.

    Marriage is about producing and rearing children.

    Everyone has the right to love whomever they want, male, female or something in between.

    That doesn't make it marriage.

    It's not just a question of redefining a word.

    You're marching to the beat of a different drummer.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @johninnaha

    Marriage is about producing and rearing children

    Where do you get that from?

    St. Paul said "Better to marry than to burn". ie It's preferable to commit to one person sexually than be consumed with frustrated lust." (Sex outside of marriage was obviously out of the question).

    In other words, marriage is alll about SEX. A necessary evil which allows people (all people) to express their sexuality and satisfy their cravings in a God-approved way. Nothing to do with being gay or straight.

    .

  • 1

    yasukuni

    Okay Thomas. Let's finish it there then. I'll even let you have the last word.

    See you on a different topic. Peace.

  • 1

    yasukuni

    And I'll even agree with your statement that the majority aren't always right.

  • -3

    ubikwit

    @showmethemoney

    I am afraid that you and logic are not well acquainted. If you were you would realize its not up to anyone to make a convincing argument for same-sex marriage. Its up to the anti side to come up with a valid reason against.

    where did come up with that self-righteous screed?

    as i mentioned above, it is the same sex marriage people that are trying to overturn thousands of years of precedent. the onus is on them (i.e., you).

    yasukuni's response to your comment states the same gist as my argument.

    You are the one wanting to change the law. The ones trying to change the laws or the status quo are the ones who have to prove why they need to be changed. And even in the US you haven't succeeded in convincing the majority of people. Let alone come to Japan and launch some witch hunt/crusade against a comedian who made a flippant joke.

    it seems that maybe you are engaged in a little selective reasoning, that is to say, ignoring the logic of reasonable arguments that call your agenda into question.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    it seems that maybe you are engaged in a little selective reasoning, that is to say, ignoring the logic of reasonable arguments that call your agenda into question.

    There haven't been any reasonable arguments. There's been tradition. Well, slavery was traditional until it was changed. Marrying children was traditional until it was changed. Women being treated as second class citizens was a tradition in the past, too. There's been the "it will damage society" argument. For which there is zero evidence. There's been the all too common "I'm not comfortable with it" argument. That is down to the individual's bigotry. Nothing the gay couples can do about that. There's been the "think of the children" plea. Children don't care. Children don't start out as bigots, they learn to be bigots through their parents.

    Please let me know if I've missed any reasonable arguments there. Feel free to give me a solid reason why gay people should not be treated equally to non-gay people.

  • 0

    oikawa

    Bluebris is right. No-one has stated in an any way clear fashion why it shouldn't be allowed, apart from Papasmurf, who said it was because he believed marriage was about procreation and as such gay marriage would be impossible. I don't agree with that but at least it has a clear premise and conclusion. Apart from that there have been NO arguments put forward that in any way shape or form even constitute a valid argument, at least in the way they've been put forward and argued here.

  • -4

    yasukuni

    Because it's just stupid. Nothing more to say.

  • -1

    Bluebris

    I read this today, very well put I think, for all the traditionalists/people hiding behind tradition out there:

    "The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we have already redefined marriage."

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all