lifestyle

Deportation could split up lesbian couple

46 Comments

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

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

I hope things will work out for them and they don't have to be separated ( or for too long ) if they do. Being far away from your loved one really sucks especially when you're in different countries and related to visa/immigration issues.

Been down that road 10 long years, I know the feeling.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They should both come to japan where it sucks then.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Interesting. I predict that Defense of Marriage Act clause will be ruled unconstitutional.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So much for "equality" in same-sex marriages, US, the land of freedom. ....

5 ( +5 / -1 )

I hope her head gets better soon, looks sore.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

10 years in the US... and a student visa!? Sorry but something fishy there. If they were really "committed" why didn't Ueda start her green card process back in 2000, it has nothing to do with relationships... of course that would imply her "visa" was valid in the beginning, if she had one... and she has had to renew a number of times. Of course if she had just entered via Mexico and claimed to be hispanic no questions would be asked.

3 ( +3 / -1 )

I don’t have a place to live in Japan. My family, my existence, is not there anymore.

That sounds really sad :( Same-sex marriage shouldn't be a big deal. Two people who love each other, want to share their lives together and have it recognised by law and society. What's wrong that? So many malignant homophobes out there. Get over yourselves. Marriage isn't the preserve of religion you bigots.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

DOMA defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Dumb Law is better than DOMA in this case!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sad situation that same sex marriage doesn't have the same legal rights but yes, ten years on a student visa at her age?! Fishy indeed.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sad situation that same sex marriage doesn't have the same legal rights but yes, ten years on a student visa at her age?! Fishy indeed.

Nothing fishy about it. Couples in this situation will piece together whatever kind of residence status they can get to enable the foreign partner to stay in the country legally. In this case, it seems likely that an employment visa wasn't possible, and that Ueda continued to maintain a student visa--with all the costs for tuition, etc. that entails--as the most viable option, then exhausted her extensions.

10 years in the US... and a student visa!? Sorry but something fishy there. If they were really "committed" why didn't Ueda start her green card process back in 2000, it has nothing to do with relationships.

One doesn't just "start a green card process." Green cards are not available to just anyone without some legitimate status for applying--an employer sponsorship, a legally-recognized spousal relationship, etc. In this case, it has everything to do with the relationship, which the federal government refuses to acknowledge.

The federal government doesn't need to recognize same-sex marriages in order to recognize the merits of a specific application for residency, but it chooses to make marriage the overwhelming legitimizing factor in these cases, a stance which both ignores modern realities and unfairly punishes otherwise worthy candidates and their partners.

This approach will grow increasingly untenable as legalization of same-sex marriage spreads to more countries.

Oddly enough, despite--or perhaps because of--Japan's complete lack of acknowledgment of gays and lesbians as a legal class, it is far easier for me to continue to live and work in Japan on my own merits, with no restrictions on length of stay (as long as I renew my visa every three years, soon to be five), than it would be for my Japanese partner to try to acquire and maintain legal status to live with me in the U.S., a supposedly more socially progressive country.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nessie

Interesting. I predict that Defense of Marriage Act clause will be ruled unconstitutional.

I agree, it will be eventually and should, but not any time soon. Obama won't tackle that one now that he can claim 'mission accomplished' with the repeal of DADT.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

shirokuma2011

...it is far easier for me to continue to live and work in Japan on my own merits, with no restrictions on length of stay (as long as I renew my visa every three years, soon to be five), than it would be for my Japanese partner to try to acquire and maintain legal status to live with me in the U.S., a supposedly more socially progressive country.

On what kind of visa are you residing in Japan? If you were granted your visa on your 'own merits' what does it have anything to do with your relationship (gay or otherwise) with your partner? Assuming your Japanese visa isn't one of spousal sponsorship, then in turn how is the ability or inability of your Japanese partner to obtain a US visa that isn't based on your relationship (same sex marriage, union, etc.) a commentary on the US' social progressiveness?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I congratulate the US authorities on having the courage to make the culturally correct decision here, even in the face of the PC fascism that seems to be tearing traditional life and family values in America apart at the seams. America has begun circling the drain due to the disintegration of its once strong family values and recent assertion that all people be treated fairly and equally under the law.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Are their children involved?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@MaboDofuIsSpicy,

Is that some kind of joke? How would they have children?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

International marriage is complicated enough without throwing lesbians/gays into the mix. It's not at all surprising that her visa was denied and i'm surprised she is surprised..if you see what i mean..

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm afraid disagreeing with the dictionary doesn't make it real.

Nothing wrong with these two being together. It's great that they love each other and want to stay together.

Love has no boundaries, but love is love and marriage is marriage.

And marriage is defined as man plus woman.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Adopted j4pnftrw or what ever your id is. I am typing in the dark.

I know lots of gay couples that have adopted. Most do.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Herbert and Ueda first met as students at Aquinas College in Michigan in 1980 and stayed in touch during the next couple of decades after Ueda returned to Japan and married a man. She said that when Herbert went to visit her in Japan in 1999, she made a big decision

Herbert destroyed the family of Ueda... sad

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

America has begun circling the drain due to the disintegration of its once strong family values and recent assertion that all people be treated fairly and equally under the law.

America disintegrating because people have begun to be treated equally? Because it was completely crime and poverty free before, right? Only a tiny handful of states have legalised gay marriage. And yet you're going to blame THAT on all the problems America's dealing with today? Surely common sense dictates that constantly repressing and denying rights to minorites does not help the social fabric in any way, in actual fact, it undermines it... but I wonder with some people on this site.

And marriage is defined as man plus woman.

Before 1967, interracial marriage in the USA was also illegal. I'm sure there were arguments back then from people like you saying stuff like 'marriage is defined as 'white man plus white woman'. Marriage is not an immutable institution, if it was then marrying outside of your race today would still be a crime. It's inhumane to ban two people from marrying each other and not letting them enjoy the same rights others do, simply because of their gender.

Herbert destroyed the family of Ueda... sad

No, Ueda is a human being in her own right and can make up her own mind. I guess her husband was probably a boring, unexpressive, salaryman type who worked 14 hours a day and had no social skills. Herbert was probably a breath of fresh air to Ueda in that case!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Lets see, these two want to lead a peaceful life and not be a burden to anyone, but the government says NO. On the other hand B. Hussein Obama's aunt and uncle are also both here illiegally with the aunt freeloading off society and the government says YES...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@MaboDofuIsSpicy,

OK, sorry, I didn't think of that. Adoption just isn't as common in Japan as in the US. That brings up an interesting question about motherhood and if that should affect her visa status.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A couple of points: first, Ueda had a "student visa", yet works as a graphic designer. Is that legal, or a violation of the visa. Second, her visa expired in July. She has been overstaying for nearly half a year. Again, a possible reason to deport.

Finally, to oginome;

Your comments regarding interracial marriage in the USA are wrong. Interracial marriages were banned in SOME states, and those laws were overturned. There really is no connection between that situation and gay marriage. Those laws were historical aberrations, and confined to one part of one country for a relatively short time.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obasan and gaijin ona pair, what a couple they will make if they live in Japan!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Frances Herbert and her wife, Takako Ueda"

Sorry, Ueda can't be the wife because Herbert is a woman. A wife's partner is a husband, and since Herbert is a woman, she can't be a husband, so Ueda can't be a wife. They are lesbian partners.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Your comments regarding interracial marriage in the USA are wrong. Interracial marriages were banned in SOME states, and those laws were overturned. There really is no connection between that situation and gay marriage. Those laws were historical aberrations, and confined to one part of one country for a relatively short time.

No, my comments aren't wrong. Being banned in SOME states is still being banned. And yes, there is a connection between that situation and gay marriage. Both the prospect of interracial and gay marriage were seen as undermining the instution of marriage as a whole at various points throughout history. Marriage predated religion for centuries, and same sex marriage existed in ancient times. The concept of marriage involving men and women exclusively came with the advent of the Abrahamic religions.

Sorry, Ueda can't be the wife because Herbert is a woman. A wife's partner is a husband, and since Herbert is a woman, she can't be a husband, so Ueda can't be a wife. They are lesbian partners.

Stop being pedantic Serrano. They can refer to each other as each others wives if they want. I thought you were a Lady Gaga fan? As a massive gay rights supporter, she wouldn't be happy with your comment.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What's pedantic? You are pedantic about one thing, and in the next breath, totally rounded off. Who is gaga? Which ones the wife? Which ones the husband? How do you decide that? Im ready for the thumbs down. This is disgusting and full of lies. You can use any amount of words to say that it is okay, and if these sort of people kept their relationship to themself, I could be understanding. But while ever there is talk of children, or demanding equality of that which isnt equal, Im totally disinterested in the suggestion that there isnt fairness.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

">What's pedantic?

The dictionary is your friend.

You are pedantic about one thing, and in the next breath, totally rounded off.

??????????

Who is gaga?

A popular singer.

Which ones the wife? Which ones the husband?

Here is something mind-blowing... they're BOTH the wife! Wow, take time to process that, make sure your head doesn't explode!

This is disgusting and full of lies.

What is? What's disgusting? What's the lie?

You can use any amount of words to say that it is okay, and if these sort of people kept their relationship to themself, I could be understanding

Say 'what' is ok? For someone who's username is 'illsayit', what you have to 'say' is just really muddled and unclear. So in your opinion, gay couples should have to hide away so they don't offend your delicate sensiblities? Please. Out of sight, out of mind, right? So you can pretend they don't exist and continue to participate in the discrimation passively? That's not 'understanding'.

But while ever there is talk of children, or demanding equality of that which isnt equal, Im totally disinterested in the suggestion that there isnt fairness.

Talk of children? So single people are allowed to adopt and countless amoral heterosexual couples can procreate and have children they neglect/maltreat/abuse, but a loving gay couple shouldn't be allowed to have a child, whether that be through adoption or IVF, because it's wrong?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A shameless picture...two woman...

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

again you obviously didnt understand that my question was rhetorical, and some pop singer must be the ideal of righteousness now? and again you lower yourself and your understanding when you suggest that heterosexuals are amoral-and if you know anything about adoption, your pull it out of the hat trick of stating a single person is a farce. I tell you what, if a gay couple can procreate and have a child then it is okay to adopt, you never know there could be a Mary amongst you. That by the way is the lie. And I forgot to say in my opinion, it's disgusting, as is your words about me being muddled, your opinion. It is a free world afterall-fallen or otherwise.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Well no, two women, actually.

And for heterosexuals in this day and age to continue to claim that same-sex marriage is destroying your "family values" is just ludicrous. You don't now, nor have you ever, needed help from the LGBT community--you undermine your own values very nicely on your own every time you have unwanted children, cheat on your spouses (after a vow before GOD to be faithful, no less!), mistreat your families, or advocate discrimination against another group of human beings. All of which, oddly enough, has been going on far longer than there has been any public movement for or against same-sex unions.

This young man puts it very well: tinyurl.com/7fbdhls

Note to DS:

A couple of points: first, Ueda had a "student visa", yet works as a graphic designer. Is that legal, or a violation of the visa. Second, her visa expired in July. She has been overstaying for nearly half a year. Again, a possible reason to deport.

The article makes no reference to Ueda being employed, except as a student. And while her visa may have expired in July, she can remain in the U.S. legally as long as her application for another status is still in process--at least, until the authorities say otherwise.

Note to USNinJapan2:

I may have worded it poorly, but my point was that, in general, I've found it relatively easy to acquire and maintain long-term residency in Japan, which means I have fewer concerns about maintaining a relationship with someone here (I speak only of my own experience). Certainly some bi-national gay and lesbian couples in the U.S. get by in a similar fashion--the foreign partner finds an employer willing to sponsor a long term work visa, or is eligible for one on his/her own, which may eventually lead to a green card application (though this has become significantly more difficult in the past ten years), or comes from a country whose citizens are able to apply for the annual green card "lottery" and after one or more attempts, actually gets chosen, etc.--but the couples written up in these kinds of "torn asunder" features generally face more significant obstacles, then look at heterosexual bi-national couples who are able to remain together legally solely on the basis of their relationships (sure, documentation requirements are strict for them as well, but spousal visas don't require the foreign spouse to work or go to school, either) and wonder why they can't do the same.

In my view, the word "marriage" in a religious sense needn't even enter the discussion--the federal government need only recognize legal unions in a civil sense.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If every body becomes homosexuals...its end of the generation...

No country should entertain homosexuality in any form, its social destructive

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Well is Ueda wanted to stay in the US there is a way. She would have had to officially marry a male. I hope she knows of at least one who is Gay so he would not want to marry later on and marry her to keep her in the US.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Gay/Lesbian couples still get one person that is the male and one that is the female. Hence the terms King, Queen, Butch, etc.

Sad that they will be split up but seems to be more along legal lines than their sexual orientation.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

again you obviously didnt understand that my question was rhetorical, and some pop singer must be the ideal of righteousness now?

Your question was 'rhetorical', yet you still don't seem to know the meaning of pedantic based on the line which followed... LOL.

and some pop singer must be the ideal of righteousness now?

When did I say Lady Gaga was my ideal of righteousness? I don't even like her. You need to start reading properly. Serrano makes so many posts on this site talking about how 'cool' Gaga is, I merely pointed out that Gaga would disagree with her viewpoint. End of.

and again you lower yourself and your understanding when you suggest that heterosexuals are amoral-and if you know anything about adoption, your pull it out of the hat trick of stating a single person is a farce

Once again, you failed to read properly. I didn't say all heterosexuals are amoral (how dense of you to think I actually said that!), I stated how ridiculous it is that the ones who are, are free to bring children into the world and abuse them, while on the other hand, loving and supportive gay couples who would make great parents, are denied the right to adopt. And no, single person adoption isn't a farce. No 'hat trick' involved.

if a gay couple can procreate and have a child then it is okay to adopt

So, likewise, if an infertile heterosexual couple can't procreate and have a child, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt either, right?

And I forgot to say in my opinion, it's disgusting, as is your words about me being muddled, your opinion.

And I find your views disgusting.

@miyazawa

A shameless picture...two woman...

I agree. It's just completely shocking, two women sitting side by side in a picture together. It's traumatisting. I don't know you'll recover.

No country should entertain homosexuality in any form, its social destructive

I agree, the way things stand right now in Japan, with its monstrously huge prostitution industry, and where cheating on your wife is common and considered almost de rigeur for salarymen, yes, yes I dread to think of what might happen to this beautiful state of affairs if gay marriage is legalised.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Beware! all (oh that's right you didnt stipulate how many you were talking about, like when you mentioned heterosexuals, you just stated that that is the truth, and now youre trying to wing in your case by mentioning the word Japan, as if there is a generalization that you have defined as truth)salary men are getting it on with the prostitutes! I admit youve had a way with your words mentioning heterosexual couples that arent able to have children. So certainly they deserve to be able to adopt a child in comparison to a gay couple. Single person adoption is a farce. And something I would also not agree with. Yepp proudly disgusting I am.Gay 'marriage' is legal, it's called a civil union. You might want to try that dictionary you suggested. But I do agree with shirokumas point about the visa, that was the other lie that I was thinking of when I wrote earlier, and thought had already been highlighted, my bias, did tend to take me on a tangent-albiet a critical point in this discussion, thus the title including the word lesbian, and one that I find tends to conflict and create persecution of my lifestyle. That is the discussion of education of women, which this situation highlights with it's so-called student visa, working econmic situation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

People really lose it over legal status of same sex couples, don't they?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Beware! all (oh that's right you didnt stipulate how many you were talking about, like when you mentioned heterosexuals, you just stated that that is the truth,

What have I stated as the truth? I never said 'all', I said 'countless heterosexual couples'. Should I have given a percentage, or travelled around the world and interviewed all the neglectful/abusive heterosexual parents? No, it's impossible. In that case, the word 'countless' will suffice. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to someone. Like shirokuma says, gay marriage won't undermine heterosexual marriage, heterosexuals do that all by themselves.

and now youre trying to wing in your case by mentioning the word Japan, as if there is a generalization that you have defined as truth)

I'm not trying to 'wing my case', miyazawa claimed gay marriage would destroy the social fabric, and since we are on a Japanese website, and miyazawa is a Japanese national, I merely reminded him of the specific social fabric he is terrified will be destroyed. Surely miyazawa's inflammatory statement was the 'generalization that he has defined as truth?'

Single person adoption is a farce. And something I would also not agree with. Yepp proudly disgusting I am.

It's a farce? A single person, who is perhaps infertile, adopting a child from, ooh, let's say, a third world country or even an orphanage in their own country where the prospects are grim, and who raises said child with love and compassion, is being farcical?

Gay 'marriage' is legal, it's called a civil union..

Civil unions are by no means legal everywhere or even most places, and no, are not afforded the same status when they're not even allowed to be referred to as 'marriages'. Ueda is being deported even though she entered into a fully legal civil union with Herbert. I thought civil unions had the same rights? But the DOMA won't recognise this. Religious control has no place in any constitution of any democracy and that includes the USA and Japan.Separation between state and religion is vital. As it follows, marriage is an institution which lies outside religion and should therefore be open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. If you're goint to keep using the religious argument to define the word marriage, then, non-religious heterosexual couples who marry should also be seen as having civil unions and not 'married'. Like I said before, marriage is not exclusive to religion, but unfortunately the prevalent hypocrisy is deep and entrenched.

You might want to try that dictionary you suggested.

No, I still suggest you try the dictionary.

@ Ranger_Miffy2

People really lose it over legal status of same sex couples, don't they?

Thank God we have you here to remind us of how silly we're being."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You may think it's silly, I equate that with disgusting. Lets see miyazawa, you assume is a Japanese national by the name. You state that third world countries should be able to adopt out their children to a single compassionate person, I contradict that viewpoint, that third wolrd countries or so they are claimed-Australia was considered a third world country not too long ago-are not really third world, just that their living standards are different. I feel that the parents there should be given more support, rather than some altruistic superior complex of a person adopting their child. Civil unions where ever they are not legal then that is what should be argued, the same as for this case, arguing for acceptance of a civil union acknowledgement. Not bending the argument to suggest it is a religious one, whereby the word marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and you want it to make an exception. I dont see that as religious. Just the same as saying this couple is a wife and a wife. Youre not going to say one of them is male and change the meaning of the word are you? Same as changing the definition of marriage seems a little bit of a superior complex that you want to try and do that. Why dont you change the meaning of male and include it to mean a female that wants to be a male? Then there wouldnt be such a subject as homosexual couples-easy! Why doesnt this happen? Because the obvious is hard to put past as the truth? No you want to change the meaning of marriage, and you want to lay blame on religion. WHich is really weird cause you admit that it isnt necessarily religious. And hypocrisy is it when you suggest God reminding us that it is silly. What is silly is that you ignore my plea of persecution, claiming that I need a dictionary.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"What have I stated as the truth? I never said 'all', I said 'countless heterosexual couples'. Should I have given a percentage, or travelled around the world and interviewed all the neglectful/abusive heterosexual parents? No, it's impossible. In that case, the word 'countless' will suffice. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to someone"

oginome this part of your argument just shows me how much you like to cross your t's and dot your i's-pedantic if you will. You zone in on one part of my wording without addressing what I was saying. You didnt state it as truth but you suggested it. Same with this highflying idea in this quote. And your line here about "cant believe Im having to explain this...", is just like the way you use the word silly. It is a superior complex that makes you say that. Just because you use the relative harmelss word 'silly', the way you have used it, you might as well have been saying....well lets see, you probably dont like the f word, but that is how you use that word silly. So silly you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Glad to see that DOMA is still in place and working the way it is supposed to. If the two ladies feel the need to be together, I am sure they'll find a way, but marriage is not it. By simple design, marriage is one man + one woman, for life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You may think it's silly, I equate that with disgusting.

Disgusting because the issue of same sex marriage is being discussed?

You state that third world countries should be able to adopt out their children to a single compassionate person, I contradict that viewpoint, that third wolrd countries or so they are claimed-Australia was considered a third world country not too long ago-are not really third world, just that their living standards are different.

Parents should be given more support? But what if the birth parents are amoral sociopaths who've neglected or abused the child, or what if a child is already an orphan in the first place? How could the parents 'be given more support' in that case? And I also mentioned adopting from orphanages in your own country, not just the third world. Australia is a backward country anyway in my opinion. Endemic levels of open racism and homophobia expressed on a scale harder to find in almost any other developed country.

I feel that the parents there should be given more support, rather than some altruistic superior complex of a person adopting their child

'Altruistic superior complex of a person'? No, these people just want to be parents. Stop projecting all these traits onto them and vilifying them in this way. Instead you'd rather 'help' the people who clearly don't care about their child in the first place. So those who desperately want to raise children and would make great parents should just be barred from doing so and these children should continue to live in orphanages or poverty and crime stricken hell holes? Right.

Civil unions where ever they are not legal then that is what should be argued, the same as for this case, arguing for acceptance of a civil union acknowledgement. Not bending the argument to suggest it is a religious one, whereby the word marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and you want it to make an exception.

Marriage hasn't always been defined as man and woman exclusively, that's what I'm saying. Haven't bent the argument in any way.

Just the same as saying this couple is a wife and a wife. Youre not going to say one of them is male and change the meaning of the word are you?

No, because they're both women, They can call themselves each other's wives if they want.

Same as changing the definition of marriage seems a little bit of a superior complex that you want to try and do that.

The definition of marriage hasn't remained the same throughout history. It has changed to incorporate different cultural norms and religious beliefs. It's a 'little bit of a superior complex' to refuse to recognise that and act like marriage has only ever meant 'man plus woman'.

Why dont you change the meaning of male and include it to mean a female that wants to be a male? Then there wouldnt be such a subject as homosexual couples-easy!

A female who loves another female doesn't necessarily want to be a man. Arrogant. Post-op transexuals can be recognised as men. But I can only guess what your view of this is.

No you want to change the meaning of marriage, and you want to lay blame on religion. WHich is really weird cause you admit that it isnt necessarily religious.

No, I said that the meaning of marriage has changed anyway throughout the ages, with religion affecting this change, as well as other cultural and social factors too. Not really weird at all, what I said makes perfect sense.

And hypocrisy is it when you suggest God reminding us that it is silly. What is silly is that you ignore my plea of persecution, claiming that I need a dictionary.

When I did suggest 'God reminding us that it is silly'? And oh... your plea of persecution? Oh please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oginome this part of your argument just shows me how much you like to cross your t's and dot your i's-pedantic if you will. You zone in on one part of my wording without addressing what I was saying. You didnt state it as truth but you suggested it. Same with this highflying idea in this quote. And your line here about "cant believe Im having to explain this...", is just like the way you use the word silly. It is a superior complex that makes you say that. Just because you use the relative harmelss word 'silly', the way you have used it, you might as well have been saying....well lets see, you probably dont like the f word, but that is how you use that word silly. So silly you.

Not true. You deliberately twisted what I said in my response to imply that I said all heterosexuals were amoral, so I merely corrected you to show that I clearly hadn't done that. Nothing of the pedant in my reply. Nothing of a superiority complex in what I said either, I said 'I can't believe I had to explain this', because it was clear that you had understand what I had said, but were trying to pretend I had said something else. Silly you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well I admit my persecution is a mental one, and Im rather fortunate that that is all it is. I especially have rather a mental barrier set in place, but there are others who dont, and have been/are affected by this argument you form. What do you mean please anyway, you do not know me, how can you make judgement? It is not China here, where we have to defend ourselves to the governments attitude that children and love is to be limited. And in fact your line of argument makes me wonder if the poor Chinese women who are limited in being a mother,-and anybody else- havent bought into your argument about giving their children to a gay couple. And so I hope this couple can deal with their situation that they are satisfied, but this tangent about education and children that always forms around this homosexual topic is only ever used to support the homosexual case, with no thought for the subject you are talking about-children, and education. Oh and you are completely wrong about Australia-Australians are very open to gay couples from my knowledge. But you may be being factual with your claim,endemic is rather a big word, but it sounds as if you arent Australian, so take it from an Australian, Australia is very accepting of gay couples- the finance minister is one for example.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well I admit my persecution is a mental one, and Im rather fortunate that that is all it is. I especially have rather a mental barrier set in place, but there are others who dont, and have been/are affected by this argument you form. What do you mean please anyway, you do not know me, how can you make judgement?

You were being melodramatic . I wasn't persecuting you by asking you to look up a word in the dictionary.

It is not China here, where we have to defend ourselves to the governments attitude that children and love is to be limited. And in fact your line of argument makes me wonder if the poor Chinese women who are limited in being a mother,-and anybody else- havent bought into your argument about giving their children to a gay couple

Well there you go. At least this argument is making us both think!

And so I hope this couple can deal with their situation that they are satisfied, but this tangent about education and children that always forms around this homosexual topic is only ever used to support the homosexual case, with no thought for the subject you are talking about-children, and education.

Homosexual couples are still fighting for their right to marry, the marriage debate has only properly become a part of the public consciousness in the last ten years. Give it time, the the issue is still relatively new, gay adoption or using IVF to conceive hasn't been discussed as much yet, but gays are defintely not using children 'to support the homosexual cause'. It's a debate about rights. Most people will want to be parents, whether they are gay, straight, male or female. Great parenting has nothing to do with gender or orientation, a good person will make a good parent. I think that's something we can both agree on.

Oh and you are completely wrong about Australia-Australians are very open to gay couples from my knowledge. But you may be being factual with your claim,endemic is rather a big word, but it sounds as if you arent Australian, so take it from an Australian, Australia is very accepting of gay couples- the finance minister is one for example.

Australia is improving, but still has some way to go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They should just move out to Hawaii, blend right in there with the natives, well at least Mr. Ueda, oops Mrs, Ueda can, I think??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites