Ruling party lawmaker says LGBT couples lack 'productivity'

She is an idiot and living in the 80's according to her choice of clothing and makeup. If they actually allowed it these LGBT couples could adopt children.

LDP. Japan gets what it votes for.

If it's ok for Western female politicians and female policy-makers to make disparaging remarks about straight white males, I don't see why this female Japanese politician is not allowed to speak her mind.

After all, when Western feminist politicians and feminist lawmakers criticize straight, white, males, they are being heterophobic and disparaging one's sexual orientation ( criticizing straight ), racist ( criticizing whites) and sexist ( criticizing males) .

Also a comfort-woman denier. Nasty piece of work.

http://fendnow.org/encyclopedia/mio-sugita/

In an article titled "Support for LGBT is too much," Sugita wrote, "Can spending taxpayers' money for LGBT couples gain approval? They don't make children. In other words, they lack 'productivity.'"

As do the Abes you simpleton.

The Japanese Communist Party's Diet affairs chief, Keiji Kokuta, criticized the LDP's Nikai for his inaction on the issue. "It has become clear that the entire LDP is a problem," he said Wednesday.

Totally agree, so why don't you drop the absurd Communist label from your party, join up with Edano and actually do something constructive to remove them from power.

Also a comfort-woman denier.

Like how china denies the rape of Tibetian nuns, girls and female members of Fulong Gong by china-nese soldiers.

If it's ok for Western female politicians and female policy-makers to make disparaging remarks about straight white males, I don't see why this female Japanese politician is not allowed to speak her mind.

We should all gather together tonight to burn candles in the dark to recognize that most oppressed of minority groups, the straight white male. Let's pray that we can ease their suffering.

What? Already fifty-one and only one child? Since, by her own statement, the function of women is to be brood sows for men, her life has not been very "productive," has it?

She is an idiot. Not because she highlighting an invalid issue, but because her response is ill thought out and probably bigoted. LGBT are not the problem here.

The valid issue is that Japan give significant financial support to dependent spouses, who by the definition of marriage in Japan must be in a heterosexual relationship. Japan does not support parents, it simply assumes all married people have or are trying to have kids. Lots of married people don't have or don't want kids. If you have kids but aren't married, you do not get the same support.

The logical thing would be for Japan to support children, regardless of whether their parents are married or whether they are straight or gay. This could easily be done through child benefit, 100% health cover for kids, no fees at public schools, etc.

The financial support given to dependent spouses works out as a cushy number for a not insignificant number of women in Japan. It should be abolished, not least because it is partially paid for by the taxes and shakai hoken contributions of other women who work full time. This would however meet very serious opposition. That is why she is not calling housewives with no kids but a free pension and free healthcare "unproductive". The easy target is LGBT.

My parents never "had" children - all three were adopted. They now have seven grandchildren - two to seven in three generations is not bad for a couple who never "had" children.

Offensive or not, she has a valid point. Couples who produce children, who in turn produce children. etc. provide a greater, vital and perpetual contribution to society. This is just a common sense fact of economic numbers.

This was one of the main reasons for giving procreating heterosexual couples recognition, legal status and protection in the form of marriage licences. And this should be the only reason the govt is involved in marriage at all. Besides that the govt should stay out of our private affairs. Leave LGBTQ couples alone to live as they choose freely. Respect them and thier contribution to society. In the vast majority of cases, however, these couples are and will remain childless and therefore don't qualify for any government marrital status.

For those who are talking about "adoption", where do you think the adopted children came from? Did a lesbian somehow produce her own sperm and impregnate herself?

where do you think the adopted children came from?

You tell us, as it would appear you have an answer to that question.

We should all gather together tonight to burn candles in the dark to recognize that most oppressed of minority groups, the straight white male. Let's pray that we can ease their suffering.

Oh, thank you. Your prayers are much appreciated. Please don't scald yourself when the candle wax melts onto your skin (unless you're into that sort of thing).

…..she is ldp so what you expect pretty much, the ldp is one of the most regressive destructive forces in Japan since the 80s, so when talking about productivity she & the ldp in general should be looking in their mirrors!

Oppressor!!!

@klausd I strongly assume she mixed up the (German) time period around 1933 and what's happening today!Send her back to the past, because that's where she belongs!

Given the 'conservative' and so called 'Christian' values of the current Russian regime, I think she's reflecting beliefs they're also pushing.

Slow "News" Day; 'eh ?

the 51-year-old mother of one also wrote.

Probably a problem with menopause, wanted more kids, started too late, and now can voice the party line because she doesn't have 3 or more.

Odds are high as well that she is one frustrated woman!

@Concerned Citizen - Offensive or not, she has a valid point. Couples who produce children, who in turn produce children. etc. provide a greater, vital and perpetual contribution to society. This is just a common sense fact of economic numbers.

That maybe so, but most of the same sex couples I know have adopted children (not in Japan, of course).

This woman is way of beat. Same sex couples account for a very small percentage of couples in Japan. She should be more concerned about why mixed sex couples are not having children. This is a much greater problem than the few same sex couples.

Sorry, but I am old school. They are 'same sex' couples. I cannot use LGBT comfortably. You might as well say, WD-40.

Photo caption: If snafu had a face..........

LGBT people are working members of society.

On the other hand, politicians do not produce anything other than hot air and stupid remarks.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but if she was speaking generally about gay couples she has a point. Some posters here are connecting her comments with people who couldnt have children and adopted instead, but that is wildly off the point.

Gay couples are not productive in terms of keeping our species alive. And gay couples are not taxed like my wife and I are taxed in Japan.

I know that I am going to be shot down over this, but do you think the human species would have survived if our ancestors promoted gay relationships? I am not homophobic in anyway, but that was just an expression to protect any criticism of gay relationships.

"Why can't sexes be just two -- man and woman?" the 51-year-old mother of one also wrote.

Totally agree.

Stupid comment from another horrible LDP member. Seems like an ongoing trend. What is this stupid dinosaur's stance of Abe and Koike being childless? Shouldn't they have contributed to fix Japan's issue regarding the birthrate issue as well?

Still way too many beautiful orphans stuck in Japanese institutions with very few rights. Many cannot even marry legally without any known and provable background. LGBT couples could be useful in helping to clean up this hidden and shameful scandal.

"...tweeted Monday that a person claiming to be gay had sent an email to her through her official website threatening to kill her."

Suddenly she's concerned about a gay person taking initiative?

"the government should not support sexual minority couples because they cannot bear offspring and thus "lack productivity."

I'm not gay but I can't stand to hear this kind of nonsense.

"Hajime Yoshikawa, the Social Democratic Party secretary general, said Wednesday he has doubts about Sugita's sensitivity to human rights. "She should apologize. She is not qualified to be a member of the Diet," he said."

Agreed.

Her comments and reasoning is a little silly...

She says gays are unproductive because they can't have children, when Japan had one of the lowest birthrates in the world. What about all the people not having babies? Are Japanese therefore one big unproductive bunch?

Her other remarks are what make the LGBT community sad, not just the virtue of them being not straight.

lawmakers lack human morals and empathy

What is psychology wrong with people that can’t accept those who are different? Shame.

I know that I am going to be shot down over this, but do you think the human species would have survived if our ancestors promoted gay relationships? I am not homophobic in anyway, but that was just an expression to protect any criticism of gay relationships.

TigerTokyoDome - 'Promoting gay relationships' doesn't change people's sexuality, so will not cause the species to die out, which seems to be what you are implying. Either your post was badly worded or you are being deliberately obtuse.

All this under a childless Shinzos watch...the promotor of a society that includes all people and want everyone to shine, under a morgue light.

Dear Mis. Mio Sugita: You have to visit numbers of orphanages in Japan and in the world, so many children of couples left them...The LGBT people have more heart than you, you had to understand that before writing your magazine article.

What a div. Back to the 19th century for you and your followers.

And gay couples are not taxed like my wife and I are taxed in Japan.

Are you daft man? There is no "spouse" tax here, people are taxed individually based upon their individual income.

SO it doesn't matter if YOU are a gay couple or not, the taxes are the same! You only get a tax break if you are claiming dependents, and gay couples, one or the other, can get the same break if they have a child to claim as a dependent.

Not to mention there are plenty of children that need adoption here and gay couples are just as capable of raising a child as a straight couple.

SO please leave your ignorance at the door of the airplane when you get here!

I know that I am going to be shot down over this, but do you think the human species would have survived if our ancestors promoted gay relationships? I am not homophobic in anyway, but that was just an expression to protect any criticism of gay relationships.

Ya are homophobic ya just dont realize it laddie! What's your argument for people who dont procreate? According to your logic, catholic priests and nuns are an abomination because they don't have kids and "if everyone was a priest or nun" the human species would have died out.

You dont even see the fault with your logic do ya?

Disabled and elderly couples must be included in this farcical idea, as well.

Yet another reason why the LDP belong in the dark ages.

bottom line

people are people and deserve respect whether they are going to “produce” more people or not. Their sexuality has no bearing on the issue. its Just more distraction to keep us arguing so we don’t ever see the real problems. Fix yourself first if you can. Peace everyone.

What a revolting woman, but she has form on this kind of rubbish.

All evidence from jurisdictions that have fully embraced freedom strongly indicates that societies do not fall apart and crumble when people have been set free of government imposed rules on individual behaviour.

The same people who say things like this, will also completely be against same sex couples actually actively trying to build a family and having children, whether it's through artificial insemination or adoption, because '' a child needs a mother and a father!!! '' or '' the kid will be bullied!! ''

The thought of a person only being productive to the society if they have children is also extremely morbid. You can spend your life doing good, helping people and working your ass off for the good of yourself, the people around you and the society, but as long as you don't make a brat, no matter what kind of failed individual they might end up being, you are not PRODUCTIVE. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Horrible woman. Worse than most of the LDP men, and that:s saying something.

See what she had to say about Shiori Ito.

The LDP are drifting away from reality day by day. If it wasn't for their (rapidly decreasing) voter base and the apathy by a large segment of the population. They would be on the fringes of political discourse rather than the centre of it. Please communist Party change you monicommon. Your policy's are the only ones that consistently hit the nail on the head. Just drop the communist thing. You're definitely not communist.

What is it about gay couples that make people so afraid, uncomfortable, or defensive? I can't understand it. And the idea that gay couples cannot give back to society is laughable. Most are highly educated, specialists and add so much to our everyday lives. I don't think she speaks for all Japanese, just a small group that feel threatened for some unthinkable reason.

What is it about gay couples that make people so afraid, uncomfortable, or defensive?

Stupidity and/or a need to lash out at perceived differences.

This politician is playing to a certain audience. But am sure that's a dwindling bunch of voters who have to be aggrieved over a section of society.

She meant "reproductivity".

In case you don't know, you were born because of man and woman, not LGBT.   Criticizing her is equal to criticizing the fact that you were born to this world. 

Or you are selfish you are happy you were born but you don't like her effort of Japanese people she represents to reproduce their babies?

With  rapidly diclining population as it is, who is going to pay the pension?

In case you don't know, you were born because of man and woman, not LGBT.  Criticizing her is equal to criticizing the fact that you were born to this world. 

I'd just like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that this is a line of argument actually being used to defend Sugida's comment. Let that sink in, then decide which side you feel more comfortable with.

Isn't this the woman who claimed she wanted to bomb the sex slave memorials in the US? And attacked rape victim Shiori Ito? She's almost a self-parody of a deluded bigot. The LDP reveals its true face yet again.

Stupid people do stupid things, that is all LDP about. If "lack of productivity" means lack of reproduction, then no single man nor woman on this universe is productive, because they all need partners. As for couples, there are many kind of couples, they are not all designed for reproduction, only sexually capable and sexually active and sexually willing and sexually complementary ones can perform.

Having read the article and all comments so far, I miss the essential point of devising the abbreviation LGBT and discussing their human rights: these persons are discriminated in a very severe way. Is there no humane concern over this fact? Have you read the book "Black like me"? Should you choose (in a similar way) not to dye your skin but to risk joining these sexual minorities as a friend--risking losing your own identity and sharing in their humiliation and their being bullied without moral or social meaning (just done as a show of contempt)--you might think differently about rejecting their model of partnership. It is not just tax breaks, but societal permission and even support that makes up a marriage as seen from outside by the law-makers, is it not? If so, these persons may find in such a program assistance to bear the virtual hate-speech. Perhaps one should be willing to grant the outspoken conservative LDP person the idea of distinguishing "marriage" from "partnership" in the two cases? This might be a support for such persons valuing of the potentially reproductive aspect of heterosexual marriages. Beyond taxes, there are issues of inheritance of what the partner has come to think of as home, special visiting privileges in hospitals and so forth and so on connected with marriage. Traditionally there is even a sense of joining the male spouse's family in lieu of one's own. To what degree would this be applicable to same-sex partnerships? A loving person would want to visit the partner in hospital (or even jail, which Heaven forbid their entering!). Are we, however, asking families to willy-nilly accept gay or lesbian partners? How difficult would that be? The task of being humane in this case is complicated as well as new and so difficult indeed like many problems of ethics nowadays.

It is wrong to promote the idea that one group of people is better than another group of people. Humanity is all about equality and fairness and kindness and tolerance and openess. Funfermentally speaking, LDP is an extremist party: it promotes its own values above all others.

Gay and Lesbian couples reproduce all the time.

It's easy for Lesbian couples(Artificial insemination), but even gay couples do it at the cost of $50~100K per child.

Sugita insisted that should all sexual orientations become acceptable, “people may start demanding such rights as marriage between siblings, between parents and children, or between humans and pet animals or even machines.”

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201807250030.html

There are heaps of LGBT parents - why didn't the journalist ask her about these? What this politician says plainly flies in the face of reality and it's the journalists job to point this out. By not doing their job, they're supporting lies and fake news, as does Japan Today by unquestionally sharing these lies. Shame on you, Japan Today, for sharing falshoods, and thereby promoting hatred. Shame, shame, sham!

Sugita insisted that should all sexual orientations become acceptable, “people may start demanding such rights as marriage between siblings, between parents and children, or between humans and pet animals or even machines.”

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201807250030.html

Sure. Sounds absurd.... buuuuuuuuuuuuut what's stopping two consenting adults who happen to be related arguing that they should be able to marry? OK... you might mention genetic birth defects, but what if they're also gay? Once upon a time gay marriage was considered unacceptable, too... but now it's ok in a lot of places. What's to stop us from opening that door a little further? I want to marry my sibling!!!

I suspect that she is still closeted and her remarks are over-compensation.

My MIL said roughly the same thing. It seems they don't understand that gay couples won't reproduce regardless of their marital status. It's not like they'll suddenly become straight if you outlaw gay marriage everywhere. Meanwhile if she's so concerned with 'productivity', why didn't she have more than one child? Or is that none of my business like EVERYONE'S sexual and reproductive lives. D'oh.

As much as for the offense caused by Mio Sugita's magazine article, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has also been under fire after the party's No. 2 figure effectively defended her by saying the LDP is composed of politicians having various opinions.

LDP Secretary General Toshihiro Nikai told a press conference Tuesday that the party had no plan to hear from Sugita over the controversial article. He boasted that the LDP "is a gathering of wide-ranging people from right to left. Each (LDP politician) has his or her own political position and life philosophy."

Their consideration for the views of deluded neo-nazi bigots is so touching.

Sugita seemed to have spoken for some among the country's conservatives...

That'll be why, of course. Got to keep those conservative voters on board, no matter how noxious their views are.

I think there is a huge stigma of adopting children or putting children up for adoption in Japan. This women's Showa era views only adds to it. In the site, how many times do we read about children getting abused, or how many babies are being aborted by young girls who think that is the only option. If Japan had better views on adoption, there would be more children in loving family, both straight and non-traditional. I'm sure an aported fetus or that cute girl who was starved to death a few weeks ago wouldn't mind growing up in a loving LGBT family.

Also, if a lesbian couple wants children, there iis a higher chance that they can be mothers than a straight couple.

BTW, I did my part, father of two girls.

One's productivity is not measured by the number of babies you can shoot out of your hoohaa. To me, someone is 'productive' by contributing positively to society, eg by doing charitable deeds, helping other people and animals in need, not committing crimes, not stealing from others, having an honest job and caring about others and the state of this planet. In that sense, this excuse of a woman and her LDP scum come right at the bottom of the pile. I can't think of anything useful the LDP has done.

And yes, if she thinks not producing children and not adding more problems to the global population explosion is a bad thing, she should tell her boss that in person - you know, the guy who doesn't have a child (thank god!)

Not every straight person has or want children. And some LGBT people do have children.

What an utter waste of space this woman is. Want exactly does she want? Does she want to exterminate LGBT people (like Hitler tried to do)? Does she want to force them into loveless marriages? Be careful with these bigot monsters. One thing will lead to another.

Is she focusing on "productivity" or on their sexual preference? Either way her reasoning doesn't hold water. First of all, she has only one child so she's also not as productive as she should be. Also, would she hold the same view if her only child comes out and says that they are other than "straight?" C'mon lady, your idiocy is so apparent!

I think she was one of the few who went on a world tour to convince people that the sex slaves during world war 2 were fabricating everything. In USA, when the Japanese-Americans didn't want to hear her lies, didn't she have a hissy fit?

I'm not religious, but I do believe people will be judged and punished. Either on earth or elsewhere. I noticed she twittered that she received some sort of threat on social media. Oh, get the violins out and cry me a river.

 "It has become clear that the entire LDP is a problem,"

That was clear when Koizumi was PM.

"lack productivity."

If true LGBT would fit in perfectly in the LDP.

Does the LDP think that by trotting out a female sexist that somehow the message is less sexist? Time check, not 1958 but 2018 today.

Pukey2:

'One's productivity is not measured by the number of babies you can shoot out of your hoohaa.'

Obviously procreating couples who bear children, who in turn bear children, who in turn........make a perpetually greater economic and social contribution to society than the vast majority of LGBTQ couples whose contribution is limited to themselves only and ceases when they die. This is just a simple statistical economic fact. Which is why society at large through the government has a far greater interest in supporting heterosexual couples with limited govt resources. It makes economic sense. It's not a matter of demeaning LGBTQ people. Any government or private business would invest thier time and resources into where they get the greatest return on investment. I think that's reasonable and fair.

Concerned Citizen - if you wish to be so reductionist as to think of people as breeders and assets whose investment has to be maximised (does the world even need more people and economic growth at the moment?), supporting LGBTQ people wishing to adopt children would be the best possible return on investment. Not only will a loving home provide a much more stable childhood for the adoptee, greatly increasing their well-being and future productivity, it will also reduce the burden on the state, who has one less child to house and feed.

People can do and what they want. One poster said “What is psychology [sic] wrong with people that can’t accept those who are different?”

The same logic means that LGBTQ people should accept and allow arguments that do not line up with their ideas or ordeals.

In other words, logically and morally, if people can’t accept the opinions of those who don’t agree with LGBTQ values, we should ask, in the words of an LGBTQ supporter “What is psychology [sic] wrong with people that can’t accept those who are different?”

Being LGBT doesn't magically make you infertile. Just like being heterosexual doesn't make you fertile or want to have children. Her comments are nonsense.

The same logic means that LGBTQ people should accept and allow arguments that do not line up with their ideas or ordeals.

The same logic means that disabled/black/any historically discriminated against group should accept and allow arguments that do not line up with their ideas and ordeals. Let's hope that you never fall into such a category!

This is what the Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker said about gay couples:

“Those men and women do not reproduce”

“In other words, they are ‘unproductive.’ I wonder if it is appropriate to spend taxpayer money on them.”

You can find more about the article if you follow the link: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201807240037.html

Maybe she meant unreproductive in the sense a maie and a female booth needed.

Very limited view anyway and what is above all wrong as a politician is not taking actions to promote help to families, whatever.

Respect everyone to be respected, even people with opposite views.

I pity her but maybe she pities me for being father of 3 only, who knows ?

LGBT people are no better nor worse than others, keep that in mind !

Totally gay gokai is glad that there are so many responses to this and so much interest. I'm also glad to see that nearly all of the responses are positive and supportive of LGBT.

The news itself of what this crazy lawmaker said isn't really what disturbs me the most, because in my experience as an gay rights activist in japan, the main 2 arguments that anti-gay people always use to justify that the government discriminates against LGBT people are:

It is not normal

Not to mention that she had said almost the same things verbatim a few years back, so yeah, the main difference this time around is that now she is an actual member of the diet, and she is still saying these kind of things.

But as I said, this isn't what disturbs me, what really disturbs me is where the conversation has been moving.

Both sides are trying to make their own interpretation of whatever 生産性 (productive) means, and what she meant, even thou the LDP has been basically making the same claims of people who do not marry and have children as a "burden to society" for a while now.

And no one is really talking about rights of LGBT people, because right now they have near to none. The so called "partnership system" is mostly a symbolic thing, which provides no legal rights to whoever gets registered, and even to this day the better way to get any kind of legal protection or right for couples is by adopting their partner, which is messed up, but people do it.

But what disturbs me the most, is that no one is trying to debunk her claim that gay people can just become straight and that basically being gay is a "phase of high school", and this disturbs me the most, because even in the LGBT community in Japan, a lot of people have very low self esteem and think that their being gay is because there is something wrong with them.

She has also said that the fact that LGBT people have a higher suicide rate does not justify teachers actually teaching about sexuality because "they do not have time to do that", basically saying that LGBT children killing themselves is a non-issue at all.

People can do and what they want. One poster said “What is psychology [sic] wrong with people that can’t accept those who are different?”

The same logic means that LGBTQ people should accept and allow arguments that do not line up with their ideas or ordeals.

In other words, logically and morally, if people can’t accept the opinions of those who don’t agree with LGBTQ values, we should ask, in the words of an LGBTQ supporter “What is psychology [sic] wrong with people that can’t accept those who are different?”

The best post on this topic so far.

We are all supposed to be against this politicians speech and support gay rights in the name of liberal freedom of opinion. Yet those of us who have any opinion in support of her speech or against the whole gay rights overkill is labelled homophobic and criticised.

As Mike James says, freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality also means that hetrosexuals who agree with her speech should be handed the same respect.

We are all supposed to be against this politicians speech and support gay rights in the name of liberal freedom of opinion. Yet those of us who have any opinion in support of her speech or against the whole gay rights overkill is labelled homophobic and criticised.

TigersTokyoDome - sorry, but you're being a bit precious there.

You've given your views, we've criticised them robustly but courteously. That's what debate is about, and these comments are actively moderated so that they remain civil. If you can't handle your views being criticised, you shouldn't be posting on forums.

sorry, but you're being a bit precious there.

Make any opinion supporting what this politician said, and we are accused of the homphobic blah, blah, blah. Make a post defending freedom of that opinion and we are accused of being 'precious'. Its a defence mechanism. I have heard it a million times.

The truth of the matter is, supporters of the whole gay thing want us to respect freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality. But if anyone dares to stand up with a different opinion then the whole freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality protest goes out the window.

The world is not in need of any more children and I wouldn't criticise anyone for not having them.

Still, lesbians can obviously bear children if they wish, and many do. Men of any persuasion cannot bear children so it doesn't make any sense to single out gay men as being "unproductive". It isn't a shortage of heterosexual men that is responsible for Japan's low birth rate: it is the backwards, regressive thinking of people like Ms Sugita and her LDP colleagues.

I called you precious because you are complaining at having your views criticised on a forum not because you were defending the politician's views. I never accused you of being a homophobe. This was my criticism,

igerTokyoDome - 'Promoting gay relationships' doesn't change people's sexuality, so will not cause the species to die out, which seems to be what you are implying. Either your post was badly worded or you are being deliberately obtuse.

which you never responded to. Now, do you really think that promoting gay relationships is going to have an adverse effect on the population? My feeling is that the 90% of heterosexuals (or whatever the figure is) are not going ot have their basic biological urges swayed by giving gay partnerships the same legal rights as heterosexual ones?

cucas, my point is this - I have no qualms about a post of mine being shot down on this site. There are currently 88 posts about this news story, of which at least 80 of them are having a pop at the politician. I am one of the few who will stand up and say I am tired of the activist "minorities" going on the attack against anyone who dares to oppose their point of view. Despite expecting the majority to be accepting of their freedoms.

And in response - obviously in the year 2018 gay couples not reproducing offspring will not have a detrimental affect on civilsation. However, in our history humankind thrived because of hetrosexual reproduction.

As one of the very few sensible posters posted earlier, ask yourself how you got here in the first place. Yep, it was down to male + female whichever liberal way you want to look at it. None of us got here down to male + male or female + female. Which makes this politicians point a little more relevant.

The truth of the matter is, supporters of the whole gay thing want us to respect freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality. But if anyone dares to stand up with a different opinion then the whole freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality protest goes out the window.

Actually, most gay activists are not asking so much you to "respect freedom of opinion" and "freedom of sexuality", since we already have that.

We have freedom to express our opinions, and since there are no sodomy laws in Japan, no one is really asking for "freedom of sexuality". What LGBT activists for most of the part ask is to end discrimination, specially at the government level.

To give LGBT people the SAME RIGHTS that any other person has, and to not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Freedom of expression doesn't mean that if you say something, no one else will ever make a protests for what you said, to the contrary, freedom of expression is a double edge sword, you are free to say any dumb thing you want, and we are free to protest you for saying those things.

It seems almost like you think that someone criticizing your opinion is against freedom of expression, which is ridiculous, and actually wanting people to "shut up" whenever people makes a protest against anti-gay people is against freedom of expression.

As one of the very few sensible posters posted earlier, ask yourself how you got here in the first place. Yep, it was down to male + female whichever liberal way you want to look at it. None of us got here down to male + male or female + female. Which makes this politicians point a little more relevant.

How does that makes it "relevant"?

No one is saying that a gay couple can give birth to a baby just by having sex like heterosexual couples do.

Every one knows how babies are made.

She isn't saying something along the lines of not using tax money to pay for same sex couples anticonceptives, because it makes no sense, or that we should not teach in school that 2 members of a sexual dimorphised species of the same sex can produce offspring, because it is faulty biology.

She is saying that tax payers shouldn't be put in the hands of LGBT people IN GENERAL because they are "non-productive members of society", justifying this concept as people who can produce offspring = productive member of society, which she doesn't even try to justify, and as commonly happen, ignores that heterosexual couples have the freedom to choose to not have children, and they still have the same benefits.

Ask yourself, when have you put the "social worth" of another human being in the number of offspring they biologically produce?

Luis David Yanez, thanks for the long speech. The fact that you need to label yourself as an LGBT activist in a country that has no laws against anyone being LGBT is confusing. Why not just get on with life?

This politician made a mistake with her comment because she is a politician. But the comment itself makes sense to me.

I made no discriminatory remarks. I just want hetrosexual people to wake up and realise that we are also entitled to have our hetrosexual opinions respected.

The LGBT community have their same rights and protections in place. Hell, you're even allowed to buy yourself babies now which I still can't get my head round. Equal rights gone mad.

TigersTokyoDomeToday 04:46 pm JST

This politician made a mistake with her comment because she is a politician. But the comment itself makes sense to me.

I suppose, if you overlook the fact that a lot of single heterosexual people are just as unproductive and that there are actually LGBT couples finding ways to have and raise children.

I made no discriminatory remarks. I just want hetrosexual people to wake up and realise that we are also entitled to have our hetrosexual opinions respected.

The right to have and express opinions must always be respected, but there's no need to respect the actual opinions if they're as stupid and tactless as the ones this Sugita individual has.

Whenever I hear things like having our "hetrosexual opinions" heard, I think of those pictures from the 1950s of white people screaming at the Little Rock Nine as they courageously attempted to integrate an Arkansas high school. Noble white activists holding placards saying things like "Go Back to Africa." No doubt they too just thought they were expressing their opinions.

tigerstokyodome

I would have expected better from you on this man! You're sounding like bass2funk :)

What on earth are "heterosexual opinions"? The phrase is ridiculous. I am heterosexual. My opinion has no sexuality.

What are you implying by saying you are "tired of the activist "minorities" going on the attack against anyone who dares to oppose their point of view."? Minorities, whoever you are including in that sweeping generalisation which has little to do with this topic, are 99% of the time standing up for their rights and trying to stop people persecuting them. This isn't an "ooh you're not validating my opinion" game on JapanToday, it's the hard reality of life, and how people are entitled to be treated, irrespective of race, colour, sexuality etc.

The fact that you need to label yourself as an LGBT activist in a country that has no laws against anyone being LGBT is confusing.

If you consider not having the same rights under the law as the law not being against LGBT people, then probably you never ever complain about any policy position of the government, unless they are literally making a law to kill you.

Why not just get on with life?

I do get on with life, believe it or not. Having a life and living my life doesn't mean I cannot or I'm unable to work for causes I think are good and just.

Also, it's also a little bit ironic, because you are defending the anti-gay activists. For some reason, they do not need to get on with their life, according to your standard.

This politician made a mistake with her comment because she is a politician. But the comment itself makes sense to me.

That is some sophistry right there.

According to her, she didn't make any mistake, and if you agree with her, then why would you say that "she made a mistake"?, Because right now she is getting criticized about their opinions?, because, I don't know if you are aware, but almost everyone here is also going against you.

But this sentiment makes no sense. If you really believe she is "telling the truth", then why do you see it as a "mistake" and not a "heroic effort to say the truth" or something like that?

I  made no discriminatory remarks.

Never say you did, but what I will say is that you have a victim complex.

I just want hetrosexual people to wake up and realise that we are also entitled to have our hetrosexual opinions respected. *

Sorry to tell you about this, but it is not a "homosexual" vs "heterosexual" issue, since actually most of the people fighting for LGBT rights are heterosexual themselves.

What you meant to say is "anti-gay" people, because that is what you are. Your opinion is basically that LGBT people are less valuable members of society just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, which is actually a form of discrimination.

You can have whatever opinion you want, but no one is entitled to have their "opinions respected". You gain the respect of others by making good arguments, but since the anti-gay movement is moved by nothing more than prejudice, ignorance and hate, unless you have those same kind of opinions, it's very difficult to get the respect you want.

If you want to be respected, stop saying or doing things that most people do not think are worth of respect.

The LGBT community have their same rights and protections in place.

No, they don't. LGBT people are unable to get married, are unable to have their partner recognized as family, which remove many rights and benefits, from taxes, visitation rights, visa, housing, loans...

Hell, you're even allowed to buy yourself babies now which I still can't get my head round.

Wow! Is there a baby shop somewhere? Because last time I checked there isn't, so maybe that is new.

The last thing I knew about this is that same-sex joint adoption in japan is actually not recognized, and the only such case in Japan of that was of a single couple, and they had to get approval by the city, which actually makes a background check before you can adopt a child as a foster parent.

Equal rights gone mad.

How can "equal rights" go mad? Rights are either equal or they are not.

If you think that equal rights can go mad, then maybe you do not believe in the concept of equal rights, which once again, is a form of discrimination.

This LDP MP is talking as if LDP is promoting child bearing & increasing Japanese population.

Her own party has passed a law which will be used as tool by companies to force employees to work more as they already are. Hence not giving the free Family time.

LDP bunch are really arrogant & ignorant

Rosalinda Harris:

'Being LGBT doesn't magically make you infertile. Just like being heterosexual doesn't make you fertile or want to have children.'

The fact is that statistically speaking, the overwhelmingly vast majority of children are conceived by heterosexual unions. Children conceived otherwise are a miniscule statistic, and zero conceived by homosexual sexual unions.

This is not to denigrate LGBTQ couples in any way. I'm just saying that the statistics show that this politician's comments have merit and that it is entirely reasonable to conclude that society should place greater emphasis on supporting heterosexual couples.

Neither can men or post menopausal women. Japan, attitides still stuck in the 19th century copying 21st century actions. She needs to resign today.

Some people are clearly pushing for same-sex unions to be recognized as the equivalent of marriages. However, nature and reason inform us that marriages are the long-term unions of a complementary pair, a man and a woman.

How can "nature and reason" inform you about marriage? Marriage isn't something from nature, it is a social contract we humans have created, it is a human fabrication.

Also, long-term nor being a "complementary pair" is a requirement for marriage right now. Also, do you have the number of "nature and reason"?, because I kind of what to be able to speak for them in that so confident way.

This pairing is the beginning of a family that may later produce children. So...marriage begins a family.

It seems you don't understand how human reproduction works, but marriage is actually not a requirement to reproduce, not if you marry means people will magically have children, so no, marriage and "child-making" are 2 different concepts.

Families are the building blocks of society. Families and marriage are, therefore, logically prior to society.

That's one of the most broken pieces of logic I've ever seen.

Family is PART of society. Family, nor marriage can be "prior" to society, because, if you have living persons living together, they are already forming a society.

Families are nothing more than groups inside a society, and in fact what constitutes a Family depends completely from society to society, and from point of history.

Governments did not create marriage through arbitrary laws but simply created laws to protect that which already existed, marriage.

The reason why governments started to issue marriage licenses is a little bit more complex.

The government has used the way it issues marriage licenses, and the benefits for it as a way to do social engineering. That's why you get benefits from marriage that you cannot get being single, because the government wants you to marry.

Governments have historically also restricted marriage between people of different ethnicities and people of different social status. Restricting what marriage is, in the way the governments do, means they are not just protecting what already exists, but try to define things, even if this definition goes against what already exist.

Not because the government doesn't recognize same-sex people as being married, these people will magically stop living together and stop being a family. The government not recognizing it is just that, the government trying to ignore or negate these people.

Hence, governments cannot ultimately redefine marriage.

As I already said, even thou they cannot in reality do it, in what constitutes the legal definition, it has been done before, and it continues to this day. The government defines marriage as whatever they want. There isn't some magical force stopping them from doing it

They can only damage them by interfering with them.

The only way the government can damage families is by ignoring them, pretending they do not exist, and denying them the same right as every other family.

You cannot take axe to the root of civilization, marriage and the family, without their being negative consequences.

Yes, because we have seen the fall of civilization for the government recognizing already existent couples. Just look at all those first world, highest hdi, highest income, highest GDP countries which have already recognized reality.

Obviously, places who don't do it, like most of the African continent, and the middle east are way better off, and have better societies.

So a gay couple raises an adopted child? Does it become gay because of the parent or will it be straight? Interesting I am always getting told they are born like this.

Humanity is all about equality and fairness and kindness and tolerance and openess.

Events during these 5,000 years of recorded history say otherwise.

Humanity is all about equality and fairness and kindness and tolerance and openess.

My response:

Events during these 5,000 years of recorded history say otherwise.

While the sentiment expressed by the first poster is fine and perhaps no one but the tyrannical, Hitlerite, family-splitter, chump of Putin and Kim Jong Un called Donald Trump (okay, I’ll say anything to get a few plus votes) would disagree, I stand by my statement as observable fact.

"Why can't sexes be just two -- man and woman?"

They are. Most people are attracted to the opposite gender but some are to the same sex. Is Mio Sugita married? If not, where's the man?

dbsaiyaJuly 27 09:02 am JSTIs she focusing on "productivity" or on their sexual preference? Either way her reasoning doesn't hold water. First of all, she has only one child so she's also not as productive as she should be. Also, would she hold the same view if her only child comes out and says that they are other than "straight?" C'mon lady, your idiocy is so apparent!

Does she hold to the old idea that women are to be just 'baby-makers'? In that regard, she's a failure.

I'm not gay and I don't understand same-sex attraction because I don't have it in me. However, it's stupid to degrade and discriminate against what you don't understand. Either way, this lady is saying days aren't 'productive'. Well, there's been throughout history quite a lot of gay people who have contributed great things to the world. Petr Tchaikovsky, Truman Capote, Elton John, Jim Nabors, Rock Hudson, Kermit Love (puppeteer who designed the Muppets), Billy Preston, George Takei, Siegfried and Roy, George Michael, Luther Vandross, Van Cliburn, Leonard Bernstein, Little Richard, Barry Manilow, and Leonardo da Vinci.

Left wing liberalism does not work in Japan, Japan has been right wing conservative pre war and post war.

Foreign ideologies can not always work here, sorry to say to some liberal foreigners, but reality is true, others can sugar coat things, but I am speaking the truth especially to liberal gaijins who come here with yellow fever and like anime etc yet not knowing it is very conservative and we have our own culture that can not bend to the west any time..