politics

LDP lawmaker says being LGBT goes against preservation of species

95 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

95 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

It's a statement of fact. He's not wrong even if you don't like it.

-24 ( +35 / -59 )

"preservation of species" is the last thing humans need to worry about. And what about heterosexual couples who don't have children? How many children does Yana have?

27 ( +44 / -17 )

Some of the original statements about this are here; https://news.tbs.co.jp/newseye/tbs_newseye4272640.html

自民党は20日、LGBTなどに対する理解増進に向け、超党派の議員連盟で合意した法案の審査を行いました。法案の目的には「性的指向および性自認を理由とする差別は許されない」と明記されていますが、出席者によりますと、「法を盾に裁判が乱発する」との意見が相次いだほか、「道徳的にLGBTは認められない」「人間は生物学上、種の保存をしなければならず、LGBTはそれに背くもの」などの声も上がり、法案に反対する議員が大勢を占めたということです。

 「女子の競技に男性の身体で、心が女性だからっていって競技参加して、いろいろメダル取ったり、そういう不条理なこともあるので少し慎重に。社会運動化・政治運動化されると、いろんな副作用もあるんじゃないでしょうか」(自民党 山谷えり子参院議員)

Blunt on the lack of love for gays and lesbians but a bit more nuance in there than this article conveys, especially about men participating in women's sports at the end.

Actually worldwide it seems like the LGB have had enough of the T: https://youtu.be/xZVdVIFLMRU

2 ( +15 / -13 )

It's a statement of fact. He's not wrong even if you don't like it.

By this reasoning, deciding not to have kids also goes against preservation of the species. As does wearing a condom. Statements of fact.

Still no reason to discriminate against people’s right to self-determination.

30 ( +48 / -18 )

The preservation of the most selfish and self-righteous members of the human species is destroying the life chances of minorities and many other species. Man in the mirror time for Yana and the like.

2 ( +17 / -15 )

There is a scientific reasoning behind gays.

Basically, fertility inducing gene in women make it more likely produce gay sons.

So a gay son is a by-product of a higher fertility in women and is not against species preservation at all, rather it is a by-product of species preservation.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/are-highly-fertile-women-more-likely-to-have-gay-sons

Are Highly Fertile Women More Likely To Have Gay Sons?

-19 ( +11 / -30 )

LOL, well in context sir, we are dying and killiny each other from overcrowding on this planet.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

So many people are triggered by the truth.

-21 ( +17 / -38 )

By this reasoning, deciding not to have kids also goes against preservation of the species. As does wearing a condom. Statements of fact.

Correct, those are also facts.

-11 ( +11 / -22 )

It's regretful but I don't want to judge him since i don't personally know him, I don't know his education, family background and beliefs. I'm 28 and gay and I have said this on other piece of news a time ago also regarding LGBT rights in Japan. I'm single right now, and even if I get a partner, I'm committed and decided to save money for my 35th birthday (or if things cannot go that way), by my mid-to-late 30s, be able to surrogate a woman and have a baby boy or baby girl.

Also, in case I cannot save the money in these years until my mid-30s I could also adopt a baby who lacks of true love from his or her parents, and whilst I would not be reproducing, I would be willing to give that baby love unconditionally, which should also be regarded high as there are tons of abandoned babies.

I think it's a statement based on ignorance. I refuse to believe it was badly-intended and polluted with sheer discrimination against gay/LGBT people.

Kindest regards to all. Stay safe.

14 ( +25 / -11 )

Ironically the best way to preserve our species, and many others, is to reduce the human population. Halving the population in the next one hundred years peacefully is very possible and the LGBT strategy will help. The math is simple actually.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

It's a statement of fact. He's not wrong even if you don't like it.

No it is not, it may surprise you but the human race do not depend on every individual to reproduce to survive. Even if a significant percentage of the population never have descendants it would not endanger the species at all.

A social system where couples are actively discouraged to have kids would be a much more serious danger, because it would act in the whole population.

18 ( +30 / -12 )

Silly that this is news. He is stating the obvious- two women can’t mate and neither can two men.

-15 ( +15 / -30 )

It's a statement of fact. He's not wrong even if you don't like it.

He's wrong, Tokyo Joe; that's a statement of fact, even if you don't like it.

13 ( +27 / -14 )

Real understanding!

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

As if we needed any more evidence that some members of the LDP are dinosaurs who should have retired years ago ...

8 ( +23 / -15 )

Ishikawa said Yana's remarks represent an "extremely stereotypical view."

"Thinking" in stereotypes is the default mental position of many politicians, almost a job requirement and the SOP of Machiavellians to win the votes of like-minded masses whose mental capacities also consist of stereotypical tropes and are marked and limited by binary ratiocination, our primary primate-typical mental tool for simplifying life's complexities and relieving pressure and stress. If LGBT = species extinction, then Yana's outburst suggests that LDP = refutation of evolution and a future recipient of a "Darwin Award".

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

It's not like same sex couples just became a thing.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

By this reasoning, deciding not to have kids also goes against preservation of the species. As does wearing a condom. Statements of fact.

Yeah. Meanwhile, many same sex couples (or other variations) have a family with kids through adoption or surrogacy. Several studies reveal that they tend to be wealthy, prosocial, and likely to contribute to their belonging community development.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Kazuo Yana, a three-term House of Representatives member, was also quoted by participants as saying at the gathering that LGBT people resist the basis of biology. The meeting was held to discuss a cross-party bill to promote understanding of sexual minorities.

Another LDP member, Mio Sugita, came under fire in 2018 for saying in a magazine article that the government should not support sexual-minority couples because they cannot bear offspring and thus are not "productive."

The LDP crying because the population they view as nothing but resources are not 'producing'.

Better to be non-productive than actually parasitic on a host population, as with the LDP politicians.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

@Hokkaidoboy

Well said, but but I think you are wrong when you said;

..... I think it's a statement based on ignorance. I refuse to believe it was badly-intended and polluted with sheer discrimination against gay/LGBT people.

There are too many instances of this type of thinking in the J government to be instances of ignorance. IF it was ignorance, he needs to be gone from government.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Knuckle-dragging Nippon Kaigi throwbacks reveal their true colours. Just in time for the Olympics.

Excellence

Friendship

Respect

Determination

Courage

Equality

Inspiration

Nope, none of those on show here.

10 ( +23 / -13 )

Liberal?

Now THERE’S an oxymoron if ever there were.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

And where is the news here?

The usual LDP/Nippon kaigi xenophobe anti-foreigners anti-freedom and anti-human rights and sexists who limit freedom of press and willing to restore their post WWII “honour” who are dreaming to revert this country in the Tokugawa era.

Actually their comments totally makes sense sadly.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Another LDP member, Mio Sugita, came under fire in 2018 for saying in a magazine article that the government should not support sexual-minority couples because they cannot bear offspring and thus are not "productive."

She should have said the same thing about not being productive without offsprings to then PM Abe and his wife who do not have any kids. No balls ( pun ) for that ,huh. LDP sure has some prime dropkicks in its ranks.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

He is right! That's the way it is!!!!

-14 ( +12 / -26 )

I do not expect politicians to know much about human biology or psychology. Some basic politics, some basic economics, some work experience, some experience of community work, and a willingness/humility to learn from successful others (other countries included) should be enough.

I might understand it better if journos were trying to coax controversial opinions out of them, by why on earth do politicians stand up and freely come out with crap like this that does not affect the vast majority of the electorate? It is 2021 common sense to not openly criticize LGBT even if you don't like them, and this willingness to tell everyone what he thinks of LGBT suggests to me that this man has plenty of other uniformed opinions he thinks important enough to tell other people from his lofty perch in this top-down society.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

From a moral standpoint, his statement is obviously reprehensible and goes against basic human rights. Not the most shocking statement from a LDP politician, but disappointing nonetheless. Fun fact, LGBT couples can be parents. Surrogates and adoption both exist.

Hell, I am not LGBT but I am happily childfree. In his point of view we are probably just as bad if not worse.

From a purely practical standpoint, it still doesn't make any sense at all. In his worldview everyone needs to be having children constantly. That isn't sustainable. The world is overpopulated as it stands, we need to be having fewer children, and in fact encouraging people to have fewer children.

The problem isn't decreasing birthrates in Japan, honestly that is a good thing, more countries need 0 or negative birthrates. The problem is our economic models based on constant population growth within limited resources. The world population can't just keep growing indefinitely and expect everything to be fine.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

LDP exploits words that pretend science to justify their discrimination consciousness or to crash pacifism constitution.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The LDP goes against the preservation of the species. There fixed it. How far do they plan to let the population drop to?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"Preservation of the species" has not, and will not, ever be a part of the laws allowing people basic human rights. For example, a marriage is not null and void if a couple chooses to not have children, one spouse is infertile, or they're too old to procreate. Nowhere in the marriage laws are "preservation of the species" a thing.

Besides marriage laws, asking for more anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws has nothing to do with "preservation of the species." This is such a clear tactic of trying to divert attention and confuse people. Yes, of course everyone knows that strictly biologically speaking two men or two women cannot reproduce, but that is bot important when talking about basic human rights. Otherwise, we would have laws against infertile people, elderly, or those who choose not to reproduce.

It's a total non-issue, and is just a way to muddy the waters on the topic, so to speak. They simply see the LGBTQ community as sub-human, have treated them that way, want to continue treating them that way, and are making up thin excuses to do so because they know it's not popular to state it outright anymore.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Follow “the science”.

except when it is true, but hurts someone’s feelings.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

It's hard to see how he is wrong - although equally, you could have a crack at deliberately childless couples as well. Given Japan's demographics, the more babies the better.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The sheer stupidity of saying that a demographic that is between 5% and 10% of the population "goes against the preservation of the species" because they may not all have children is mind-boggling.

Here's the thing.

The percentage of people who elect not to have children is roughly the same as the percentage of LGBTQIA: 7%. In Japan, that number is probably higher, as fertility rates are below the world average.

And it has been pointed out on many occasions that LGBTQIA can, and do, have their own children.

To blame low fertility rates on LGBTQIA is so illogical and against all common sense that the only conclusion is that this is being said out of sheer bigotry.

It's no surprise that bigots lie to support their bigotry. After all, bigotry is based on personal prejudices and not fact, so it makes sense that the only way they can support their bigoted rhetoric is to lie.

And of course, the lies work and the bigotry increases.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

Huge difference between “cannot” procreate and “don’t”.

but people know this already. Saying this obvious fact in public from a government person isn’r really necessary. Just upsets a small but vocal part of the population.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

Huge difference between “cannot” procreate and “don’t”.

Scientifically, there isn't. The result is exactly the same.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

"Another LDP member, Mio Sugita, came under fire in 2018 for saying in a magazine article that the government should not support sexual-minority couples because they cannot bear offspring and thus are not "productive.""

From a Science point of view he is correct. He should have said "reproductive."

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Scientifically, there isn't. The result is exactly the same.

It’s actually not. Because scientifically one group can and another can’t. You know this.

“dont” can become do. At any time. Even accidentally or with someone not even a couple with.

“can’t”...well it’s can’t. “Science”!

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

So he is also by implication condemning any straight couples who do not have kids as "not productive". They should also stand up against this outdated guy.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

well its against common sense...prove me wrong

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

7.6 billion on the planet at this moment and rising.

I'm not seeing any danger here from lack of fertility.

Now global warming and pollution? That is something to worry about when it comes to preservation of the species.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I think what was meant by 'not morally acceptable' was stuff like this: https://mobile.twitter.com/LHatesYouALot/status/1395916577573425152

I'm not really in favour of stuff like that to be honest

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

It’s actually not. Because scientifically one group can and another can’t.

Who can and can't is irrelevant. "Can't and "don't" have the exact same biological result. Japanese people can have kids, but they don't, which is why the country is demographically in trouble. Pandas are not on the brink of extinction because they're all gay, but because they don't have sex. Biologically and statistically, it's the exact same end result.

“dont” can become do. At any time.

Except for infertile people of course. And women in menopause.

But what's your point exactly?

8 ( +11 / -3 )

@Blacklabel

LGBT couples can and do have children as well. It does not necessitate a childfree lifestyle. Nor does being straight preclude a childfree lifestyle.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Wobot Today 10:47 am JST

I think what was meant by 'not morally acceptable' was stuff like this: https://mobile.twitter.com/LHatesYouALot/status/1395916577573425152

I'm not really in favour of stuff like that to be honest

Why do you think your approval is needed?

There is nothing immoral about a sexual identity.

But do you know what is immoral? Bigotry.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Yana is an idiot. Diverse sexual orientations have always been with us and has never put human reproduction in peril. End of discussion.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

I really do wish these bigoted species would stop reproducing.

Eisenach:

"Another LDP member, Mio Sugita, came under fire in 2018 for saying in a magazine article that the government should not support sexual-minority couples because they cannot bear offspring and thus are not "productive.""

From a Science point of view he is correct. He should have said "reproductive."

Mio is a 'woman', although I use that term lightly. She was reportedly the one who yelled out in the diet that women who want to keep their maiden names shouldn't get married. She was once with the Japan Restoration Party, a right-wing party which, ironically, supported same sex marriage. She opposes increases in nurseries. I don't need to elaborate on her views of sex slaves during the war and rape in general. Let's just say she doesn't have much sympathy for rape victims.

Sadly, she has a child.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Blacklabel Today 10:14 am JST

Huge difference between “cannot” procreate and “don’t”.

Men and women who are infertile also cannot procreate - are they also to be condemned in the same way? Of course not - because it's not the outcome, i.e., not having children, that is being focused on; it's the fact that these people are not straight.

So why would someone truly concerned with "the preservation of the species" condemn a group that can, and is, having children?

In other words, a different standard is being applied solely because these people are LGBTQIA.

Infertile? Well, that's okay - you can't help it!

Don't want to have children? Well, that's okay - it's your personal choice!

LGBTQIA, who are in fact having chidren? NO... BAD... WRONG!!!!

In other words, this is nothing but bigotry couched in faux concern.

3 ( +14 / -11 )

I'd have put good money on this fool being a typical LDP octagenarian. Sadly, he's only 42. I would have hoped for better.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Matej

well its against common sense...prove me wrong

Here you go:

Addfwyn

LGBT couples can and do have children as well. It does not necessitate a childfree lifestyle. Nor does being straight preclude a childfree lifestyle.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

How does this biologically happen without the presence of both a male and a female somewhere in the process?

LGBT couples can and do have children as well.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

The world is overpopulated despite humans being gay through all recorded history. Do you think there are more gay people now than 100 years ago, 1000?

Why not argue that divorce is immoral and increasing the birth rate leading to a multitude of problems?

Mr Yana is just showing his bigotry. Use your noggin.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@tokyo joe

You are so correct. In addition, he has the right to free speech as guaranteed in the Japanese constitution. If he expresses his views and is then elected, he has the support of his constituents. Whether people like it or not is not of his concern. If people don't like it, then become Japanese, acquire the right to vote and then vote for someone who expresses your concerns. If you don't want to do that, well, there are still planes leaving Japan. No one is forcing you to stay.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

blacklabel:

How does this biologically happen without the presence of both a male and a female somewhere in the process?

A lot of LGBT people have children from previous 'straight' relationships. I mean, Trump-supporting (and delusional) Caitlyn Jenner has quite a few offsprings.

Besides, try telling straight couples who have adopted, fostered or conceived through surrogacy that their children are worthless simply because things weren't done using your approved methods.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

We need more people who don’t procreate. Give them tax breaks.

Another LDP member, Mio Sugita, came under fire in 2018 for saying in a magazine article that the government should not support sexual-minority couples because they cannot bear offspring and thus are not "productive.""

From a Science point of view he is correct. He should have said "reproductive."

Mio Sugita is a woman. Not very knowledgeable about this Japan stuff, are you?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

LDP lawmaker says being LGBT goes against preservation of species

Humanity has always had LGBT. And we're still a species, with more people now than ever. How does this fool explain that?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Resist the basis of biology

he sure knows a lot about it. It is a good thing though that the basis of biology will make these type of conservative ojisan going extinct in the near future.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The smallest comment about gays (which isn't a negative opinion just a fact stated that you don't like to hear) and you are up in arms.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Thanks to all the majority of people who weren’t and still aren’t LGBT. Obviously.

Humanity has always had LGBT. And we're still a species, with more people now than ever.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Yes during her time filling the “male” part of a male/female equation that I mentioned. She wasn’t always LGBT right?

and delusional) Caitlyn Jenner has quite a few offsprings.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

The smallest comment about gays (which isn't a negative opinion just a fact stated that you don't like to hear) and you are up in arms. Such drama queens.

You’ve posted at least 4 times in this thread. Who’s the drama queen?

The fact is that gay people have always existed and the human population has continued to increase. That IS a fact but there’s no need to get upset about it.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

BlacklabelToday 11:43 am JST

How does this biologically happen without the presence of both a male and a female somewhere in the process?

Um, it doesn't?

Just like opposite-sex couples who for whatever reason need medical intervention to have a baby, LGBTQIA couples also have children using medical intervention.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Yana should stick to topics he is qualified to talk about. Which is not a lot I think.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Maybe try the GOWM (Grumpy Old White Men) association?

Stereotyping yet again. The misandry is palpable.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

preservation of species

Which species of dinosaurs?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Yet another LDP crony suffering from foot in mouth disease. The saddest thing is, he actually believes this.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Transitioning usually involves castration, or am I wrong? This leads to infertility, for those that are not familiar with the topic.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Sure, if everyone magically turned gay overnight.

I reckon that the millions of children adopted into gay families might differ.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

LGBT are what they are, respectful people in same percentage as others.

I believe it is just a matter of standpoint, you know like trying to explain the Einstein relativity theory.

I understand he has in mind that if all humans were LGBT, the species would go extinct (rapidly), which is true.

What is forgotten is that LGBT, or any letter of alphabet for straight people who decide not or cannot have children, will help the couples and its children on average. In so helping to preserve the species.

Mother nature is complicated but our species show that there is no currently LGBT existence issue.

At couple level only, preservation of species is indeed not achieved.

Did you know scientists assessed that a minimum of 10,000 people were necessary to preserve the human gene pool? So plenty of space for about 5% of population to help.

Personally, at species level, the issue is reproduction of people who are not supposed to, specifically because their genes contain flaws intrinsically.

Sorry to be with science based point of view, best is progress in respect and science. I also respect people with other points of view, which does lean I agree with them. And that some vocal LGBT persons, are not respecting at all.

Yana is not a dinosaur, but incompetent in science at least. Many are if it is not your field of study, it should not be a problem to admit it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Just when did we get to the stage in which we value human beings by their ability to reproduce? Except, as many have pointed out, this all being based on a false premise, is making babies the only way a person can contribute to society? I feel sorry for anyone who genuinely believes that.

Anyway, just in case anyone's interested, here's a petition asking for his apology. It's not much but better than nothing:

http://chng.it/zqLVvHStKy

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Actually worldwide it seems like the LGB have had enough of the T

I'm not sure how widespread that sentiment is, but I have heard it from some people, including a gay couple I know. The reasoning is fairly simple - the LGB element is a simple flag of what gender you want to enjoy sex with. The T element is something quite different. Self-identifying as male or female to yourself is fine, but expecting others to accept that is a different matter. As my friends say, if a female friend changes her self-identity to male, what kind of man are they identifying as and does she/he expect expect them to become sexually attracted to her/him. There are all sorts or men and all sorts of women, and she's just another type of woman. I can see the logic there.

Anyway, this has little to do with species preservation which is more likely to be affected by wars, asteroids, weather, and politicians than sexual preferences.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There is a saying: "Think three times, say once." :)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's bewildering how many people refuse to admit or comprehend several simple things and who attack Yana for stating the obvious.

First, Japan badly needs babies. Gays do not reproduce, so yes, they are against preservation of species. No "homophobia", "outdated thinking" or other progressivist blah-blah, it's just a matter of fact, nature. Surrogate parenting is just surrogate.

Second. Straight people who refuse to have kids are also against preservation of species, but at least they can have change of mind and at last decide to have children.

Third. Yana is from a Japanese political party, so he must think of all about Japan and its problems. Why some posters here cite world overpopulation? Let the countries with oversized populations sort out their problems, Japan should sort out its own.

LDP just must stop saying the obvious and take concrete measure to support families who want to have many kids.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

@Paul

Homosexuality is common among animals. A quick Google search will solve that mystery for you.

@Asakaze

If the LDP is so worried about Japan's stagnating population, why don't they, say, support affordable childcare so that women don't have to choose between a career and raising children? Or support immigration? Or are non-Japanese babies not good enough?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Maybe this "lawmaker" should concentrate more on revising laws and policies regarding what the government can and should do during a pandemic so that the country isn't cycling through a neverending loop of SoE's; instead of being a homophobic, ignorant, jerk.

OR if he's so worried about the "preservation of the species" why not revise/invent some laws that offers more protection for single working mothers, start up more free/afforable daycares, get companies to have in-office childcare facilities, allow fathers their alloted paternal leave without fear of demotion or ridicule, reduce the horrendous unpaid overtime that leaves people unable to start families etc etc? These LDP members are always all talk and no action.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Yotomaya

Homosexuality is common among animals

No, it happens sometimes, but it is not common. Had it been common animals would have died out.

Or support immigration?

Look at Germany and France. Mass immigration is not a cure, it's just a replacement of one problem with even bigger one. Controlled immigration is fine in Japan, I know several international couples with nice kids and who have absolutely no grievances against J-government.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Lesbians and gays can change their sexuality in the same easy way as heterosexual people - they don’t. Instead of blaming LGBT people for low natality rates think about how do you make an environment that people are willing to bring new life into. Firstly there is an issue when father wants to take parternity leave because “he is making situations for his colleagues inconvenient”. Then there are long work hours, financial issues etc. I am not Japanese nor did I go to Japanese schools, but what I could read it can be really stressful for kids. If I had stressful experience in school I would not like for my kids to have the same. Again, since I am not Japanese I could move back to my home country where my kids would have much better education, however Japanese people do not have the same “luxury”.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Having a better immigration policy would do more good for the Japanese population than "concerns" about LGBTQ+, which are based on neither science nor fact.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Asakaze

It's bewildering how many people refuse to admit or comprehend several simple things and who attack Yana for stating the obvious.

First, Japan badly needs babies. Gays do not reproduce, so yes, they are against preservation of species. No "homophobia", "outdated thinking" or other progressivist blah-blah, it's just a matter of fact, nature. Surrogate parenting is just surrogate.

Second. Straight people who refuse to have kids are also against preservation of species, but at least they can have change of mind and at last decide to have children.

Third. Yana is from a Japanese political party, so he must think of all about Japan and its problems. Why some posters here cite world overpopulation? Let the countries with oversized populations sort out their problems, Japan should sort out its own.

LDP just must stop saying the obvious and take concrete measure to support families who want to have many kids.

So many errors here.

1. Japan needs population. Addressing the immigration system would alleviate this much more effectively than any Orwellian push to "HAVE BABIES". Also, better support systems in place for people who ALREADY have families would encourage more to do so. Adoption by a stable family unit is part of the solution, not a problem - as kids put into a loving home rather than being brought up within the system are far more likely to become members of society who contribute in a positive fashion.

2. The inanity of insinuating that someone's at fault for "not having kids" is rather boggling.

3. If this were true, then Yana & co would be part of a push to do literally dozens (thousands?) of things that could address problems within Japan, that they are not currently doing. The issue at hand is population: then why aren't they exploring ways to improve that, without overburdening global resources?

4. The "saying the obvious" is a complete headscratcher, and based upon a premise that is incorrect. The second part - increased support families - that I can get behind!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

AsakazeToday 04:36 pm JST

It's bewildering how many people refuse to admit or comprehend several simple things and who attack Yana for stating the obvious.

No kidding:

First, Japan badly needs babies. Gays do not reproduce,

Yes, we do.

Second. Straight people who refuse to have kids are also against preservation of species, but at least they can have change of mind and at last decide to have children.

So can LGBTQIA.

LDP just must stop saying the obvious and take concrete measure to support families who want to have many kids.

This, very obviously, should include LGBTQIA.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

AsakazeToday 05:01 pm JST

No, it happens sometimes, but it is not common. Had it been common animals would have died out.

You should read more before forming an opinion:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-is-same-sex-sexual-behavior-so-common-in-animals/

We explicitly move away from viewing SSB (same-sex behavior) as aberrant or as mutually exclusive from DSB, instead acknowledging that individuals and populations of animals can engage in a spectrum of sexual behaviors that include both DSB and SSB in a vast array of combinations.

Same-sex behavior is very common in animals. But since it doesn't stop them from later procreating, they will not die out.

But before drawing any conclusion here, we should also remember that animals and people are so different that the comparison really is rather moot.

But speaking of gay couples adopting, there was an interesting article the other day about a gay penguin couple who stole the eggs from a lesbian penguin couples' nest: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gay-male-penguins-steal-lesbian-couple-s-eggs-dutch-zoo-n1244575

Next on Geraldo: lesbian penguins sue gay penguins for custody of hatchling

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Blaming Japan’s falling population on LGBQT is mind bogglingly stupid.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Quaint. LDP, the party that cares less.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

samuraivunylToday  11:58 am JST

You are so correct. In addition, he has the right to free speech as guaranteed in the Japanese constitution. If he expresses his views and is then elected, he has the support of his constituents. Whether people like it or not is not of his concern.

He should care about what he says, particularly when the motivation is driven by bigotry.

If people don't like it, then become Japanese, acquire the right to vote and then vote for someone who expresses your concerns. If you don't want to do that, well, there are still planes leaving Japan. No one is forcing you to stay

I haven't read the old "if you don't like it leave" line for quite a bit. Are you seriously saying that no foreigner can hold any critical opinion about anything of the country they live in without becoming Japanese? Even Japanese are denouncing this bigot, so there seems to be no reason why foreigners shouldn't be able to express their opinion too.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Its true,

purpose of biological life is reproductive success

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So does capitalism. So does dumping radioactive water into the ocean. Nearly everything humanity does goes against preservation of the species, so what's his point?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The fact is that gay people have always existed and the human population has continued to increase.

Incredible that 97% of the human race managed to offset the anomaly!

So does capitalism. So does dumping radioactive water into the ocean

Absolutely!! If there is one thing China and the former Soviet Union has taught us, its that communists just LOVE the environment!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

LDP lawmaker says being LGBT goes against preservation of species

The same could be said about the LDP, and many Japanese companies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that having lots of gay children is nature’s way of preventing population increase? Kinda like how normal cells stop dividing when they hit a certain threshold? When cells don’t stop dividing, we call that cancer.

Why do people seem to think an ever-growing population is a good thing? We’re already at a point as a species where we’re unable to sustain the current population, let alone any more of us.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Humanity has always had LGBT. And we're still a species, with more people now than ever.

Thanks to all the majority of people who weren’t and still aren’t LGBT. Obviously.

I agree, it's very obvious! But clearly not to this moron of a politician and half the posters in this thread, who seem to think that even though LGBTQ have been part of humanity from the start without resulting in the end of humanity, somehow that will suddenly change because they've figured out that these people exist.

I always feel bad for people who live their lives in fear. What a pathetic sad existence. At least they have the internet to come feel better about themselves by trying to make others afraid with them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Absolutely!! If there is one thing China and the former Soviet Union has taught us, its that communists just LOVE the environment!

And if there is anything the single biggest polluter on this planet (USA) has taught us, it's that Capitalists think the environment is only there to make them money, and only needs to survive as long as they do.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's a statement of fact. He's not wrong even if you don't like it.

It is NOT a statement of fact. It is not nature’s intent to reproduce to the point of overpopulation, but rather to achieve balance and sustainability. Homosexuality shows that relationship and social communication, not procreation, are the critical element in nature. And nature shows us this in homosexual behavior found in other species. For example, all male dolphins are homosexual in the early parts of their lives until later when some reproduce.

Nature is more complex than we realize. Attempting to narrowly define biological norms is dangerous because it oversimplifies the dynamics of nature and human diversity.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why are LGBTQ people so angry and intolerant at normal people, particularly straight males? And normal is defined as typical, which is what heterosexuals are based on population.

Can't people have opinions that differ from the opinions of a small minority?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Japan is led by old Japanese men who are easily swayed by under the table deals. It is time for women to break the glass ceiling and rise to the occasion.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Considering the low birthrate of 1.3 I doubt that LGBT individuals had anything to do with that. The government, long working hours, and the slowing economy are the real threat to the Japanese people. Nice try with his comments tho.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites