politics

Japan ruling party objects to lawmaker calling LGBT unproductive

104 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

104 Comments
Login to comment

WaaaaaH:

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Does Tomu Tanigawa think same sex marriage is ‘like a hobby” because his dual-sex marriage is his hobby?

One LDP politician takes foot out of mouth, another sticks his or hers in,

13 ( +17 / -4 )

"If (Japan) becomes a society where people are judged superior or inferior from the viewpoint of how useful they are to the state, the person to be eliminated next time around can be 'me,'" Ototake said in a tweet shared by thousands of people.

Hits the nail on the head right there. It's scary stuff. The LDP's problem is that something like 40% of it's Diet members are dynastic politicians of second, third or even fourth generation who have never had to examine their own positions on anything. They just get re-elected as a matter of course. Since their political positions were learned at their grandfather's knee, so to speak, they are hopelessly outdated and the people themselves are incapable of dealing with anything new. Just look at Nikai's laughable comments in June about childless couples and his clueless response to Sugita's nasty comments.

The LDP'S playing whack-a-bigot here:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/08/02/national/ldp-lawmaker-says-lgbt-relations-like-hobby/

19 ( +24 / -5 )

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

Because they arn't.... why can't we fly? Because we can't.

3 ( +18 / -15 )

Echoing his party's view, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters during a visit Thursday to Miyagi Prefecture that it is "only natural to aim at a society where human rights are respected and diversity is cherished

Just goes to show how far away Abe is from his own party. He doesnt know the definition of the words "human rights" or "diversity".

His "aims" are like his "urges", destined to failure before they even get a chance to start!

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Sugita san is absolutely correct.

Biologically humans of the same sex cannot reproduce.

Therefore, they are unproductive.

-23 ( +11 / -34 )

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

You may as well ask why we don't have wings. If you believe in intelligent design, or a god, you'll have to ask the designers/god. If you believe in evolution, it's because we never evolved that way. Men and women come from the same zygote, that develops over time. This has resulted in all men having some female features (nipples anyone?), and all women having some male features (hair above the lip anyone?). The majority of humanity has always swung more in one direction or the other, becoming that which we identify as 'male' or 'female', but all of those males and females have always held part of the DNA of the opposite sex, and throughout history there have been people who were not born as far at one extreme or the other, and are more towards the middle - a male with female traits, or a female with male traits.

There never have been just two sexes. I can understand how that would probably make things easier for us all if there were only two, clearly defined sexes, with no variation. But it would also be easier if we lived in Utopia where everything was perfect. We don't live in Utopia though, and there never have been only two sexes. So rather than dreaming about a world which has never been and will never be, let's look at the actual world we live in, and deal with it accordingly.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Biologically humans of the same sex cannot reproduce.

Therefore, they are unproductive.

This 'logic' is so easy to pick apart, it's ridiculous.

If one of those people gets up and gets coffee in the morning before the other wakes up, allowing that other person to move quicker throughout the day and get more done, they have been productive.

Logic destroyed.

11 ( +19 / -8 )

If unproductive literally means “won’t produce” then yes and thank you.

Overpopulation is the fuel that feeds global climate change and many wars and problems.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

I am under the impression every Diet member has a duty to represent all constituent without fear or favour, without discrimination, intolerance or prejudice. Irrespective of there “personal opinions" both Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa are incapable of supporting there constituents. There prejudices are incompatible to the role of dietary membership.

The Constitution of Japan.........Chapter III. Rights and Duties of the People

*Article 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.*

Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.

No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.

http://www.sangiin.go.jp/eng/law/tcoj/index.htm

If the youth of Japan (18 to 25) don't shake of there political reticence/complacency and get up off there backsides, start taking democracy seriously and vote then expect more “Mio Sugita's, Tomu Tanigawa's” to come crawling out the woodwork peddling poisonous views/opinions.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

It is unusual for the LDP to issue a statement clarifying its position regarding "personal opinions" expressed by its lawmakers.

Yeah I wonder why, Oh that's right, elections are coming soon.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Just because people don't mate with their chosen partner, that doesn't mean they won't/can't choose to mate with someone else and be "productive" if that is a priority for their lives. There are other methods to be productive which don't require doing the deed.

The world is overflowing with orphaned children who also need loving parents to take care of them.

Politicians who say dumb things should be held accountable at the polls.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

@Strangerland

I fail to see the point of your critique.

Making coffee?

I mean....?

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

When you hear and read remarks by Sugita and others of her way of thinking, it's almost like a bad dream. Are people still so far removed from reality?

This is why LGBT people still have a battle on their hands, a battle against ignorance and prejudice.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

In the 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.'"

That's not a LGBT-only issue. Many heteros, asexuals etc choose NOT to have kids (or, in some cases, can't). Yet most govts (including J's) have no problem using these 'unproductive' ppl's tax dollars to finance education, kids' health care system, maternity leave etc.

Double standard much?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

kurisupisu:

Sugita san is absolutely correct.

Biologically humans of the same sex cannot reproduce.

Therefore, they are unproductive.

If by the term "biologically" you are referring to both partners in a same sex marriage being unable to contribute their genetic material to the child, then, sure you are correct, but clearly many people can help in the raising of the child and that is productive. Humans are not alone in having members other than the biological parents helping to raise (or even solely raising) offspring, and this "altruistic behavior" tends to evolve in species where members are somewhat related to each other, but not always.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

“sincerely" and will "study diligently."

Ha! That’s just marvelous.

Mission accomplished little known politician gets national exposure sounding like an idiot. Her base will love her. I have to wonder if these types take a page from the playbook in the West , and try and use it to sound smart ( or strong ) to a national audience. The identity politics and LGBT pronoun debates for example are worth a look and a serious discussion , but she just comes rolling in like a 12 year old and instantly starts a fire that she doesn’t have the goods to deal with.

Hey though, it’s politics. Any exposure is good exposure right?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Let's be optimistic here - at least this mild censure from the LDP for that woman's ridiculous comments is an improvement on the usual 'expressing their opinion as a private citizen' excuse that is usually given when some poisonous reptile praises apartheid, Nazism etc. Baby steps and all that

Kurispisu - you need to expand your definition of 'productive', many people play extremely valuable roles in society without having children. Life is more than about spawning.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Forget for a moment the silliness of this woman's comments for roughly 3% of the population and much , much less a proportion of marriages in Japan.

Lets sit back and have a good laugh of the PC-obsessed throw biology out the door in trying to explain how sex is separate from gender!

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Kurispisu - you need to expand your definition of 'productive', many people play extremely valuable roles in society without having children. Life is more than about spawning.

While I agree with your first point, your second is essentially false. Leading a child-free life is, in the end, pointless.

Lets see how people feel in a century when Japanese as a race could conceivably die out.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

Stupid people can only produce a stupid party. It is much better for a woman to behave just like a woman. For a woman to behave like a man, as Sugita did, only adds more ignorant and incompetent.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Leading a child-free life is, in the end, pointless.

Of course it isn't. The point of life is up to the individual and many indiviuals decide not to have children. Maybe you are religious so have different views, but in my opinion there is no arbiter at the end of one's life judging how much of a point that life had.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Ms. Sugita said the following:

"Can spending taxpayers' money for LGBT couples gain approval? They don't make children. In other words, they LACK 'productivity."

She didn't say 'not productive at all'. 

With no disrespect to LGBTQ community I think it entirely fair for the government to prefer to spend tax payers money on child bearing couples because such couples obviously produce a far greater and perpetual economic and social contribution to society. This as just plain economic sense. All governments, companies and private individuals invest in where there is a greater return of investment. 

The statistical fact is that LGBTQ couples have very few children compared to heterosexual couples. So it makes economic sense to invest more into heterosexual couples. This is fair.

No other segment of the public can insist that the community, through the government, invest in something that has a lesser return on investment. So why are these activists doing so? They would never do that with thier own money.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

People do not and should not marry in service to the state.

People do not and should not procreate in service to the state.

People are not born to be servants of the state.

19 ( +22 / -3 )

Two guys and a dog do not make a family!

-17 ( +6 / -23 )

Leading a child-free life is, in the end, pointless.

Of course it isn't. The point of life is up to the individual and many indiviuals decide not to have children. Maybe you are religious so have different views, but in my opinion there is no arbiter at the end of one's life judging how much of a point that life had.

Indeed you are welcome to lead your life as you see fit. Im not particularly religious, but after living a significant portion of my life single and childless, I can honestly say there is no comparison. My life before was pointless and empty compared to now.

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

@poopygalore

And when you become more dependent in later life, who do you think will empty your slop bucket for you?

It will be somebody’s child!

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

@iraira21

Yes, that is precisely what I meant.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

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

By her own definition, she's a slacker.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

@poopygalore

And when you become more dependent in later life, who do you think will empty your slop bucket for you?

It will be somebody’s child!

Another good point, kurispisu. As I grow older, Ill have the benefit of having a loving, dedicated son or daughter to help look after me.

Its so sad to see the elderly die alone, with no one to take care of them but the overworked staff of a nursing home.

If that.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

poopygalore - I have two kids and agree that my life is much more meaningful for having them, but you are judging meaningfulness from exactly the criterion that I gave in my earlier life - from an individual viewpoint. It's unreasonable to expand your definition of what is meaningful to encompass other people. A friend of mine in a long-term relationship refused to have children, stating that the world is overpopulated. On the other hand, he is the head teacher of a very successful state primary school in London - is his life less meaningful than mine?

These arguments on reproduction are specious anyway because the proportion of gay people is dwarfed by the number of heterosexual people who do not have children for various reasons.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

As I grow older, Ill have the benefit of having a loving, dedicated son or daughter to help look after me.

Perhaps they’ll be too busy with their own kids or jobs to do that. Unless they are childless slackers, they probably won’t have enough time.

Talk about placing burdens on others.

What a spoiled, dependent mindset.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Isn't a productive politician something of an oxymoron?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

As I grow older, Ill have the benefit of having a loving, dedicated son or daughter to help look after me.

Very sad thing to say/write ('dedicated' wow!). Parenthood does, occasionally, bring out the worst in ppl (selfishness, sense of entitlement etc).

5 ( +8 / -3 )

People shouldn't be so hard on this woman. She is only reflecting on her limited and right-wing education that is based around, "The nail that stands up must be hammered down!" mentality. Same sex couples make up a very small percentage of couples in Japan. Furthermore, most of the same-sex couples I know have adopted children but, not in Japan because it's damn near impossible for anyone to adopt children in Japan. She and the rest of the cronies should be more concerned about why nearly 30% of 'heterosexual' women in their 30's are single by choice and have chosen career over marriage. This is a more pressing problem.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I do hope this Sugita person takes some time off to contemplate her motives for such a poorly informed comment.

The LDP is on damage control right now, which is something positive, I guess.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Sugita and Tanigawa, clueless oafs the pair of them. They should be kicked out of office at the first opportunity. I wonder if they will be.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

My life before was pointless and empty compared to now.

Good for you - I'm glad that you have children to add meaning to your life. Although it is almost sad that you are unable to generate meaning in your life without procreation.

Luckily know several people who live meaningful lives without children.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

A friend of mine in a long-term relationship refused to have children, stating that the world is overpopulated. On the other hand, he is the head teacher of a very successful state primary school in London - is his life less meaningful than mine?

Good for him and his professional success. I was not, and am not knocking it. But the answer to your question is ...yes. We are meant to procreate.

For all the trials and tribulations of raising a child today, I have not met one couple who made a conscious choice to not have children and not regret it.

A perfect example are family friends of my parents living very well on the west coast. Both of them professionals, wealthy and well travelled. Both in their early 70s now. Years ago, I arranged for an old girlfriend of mine, then in her early 20s to visit with them while she attended university in a strange new city.

They immediately latched onto her and showered her with affection. She became a surrogate daughter to them both.

The wife confided to me later that having her around made them both realize what a mistake they had made. They are still close to this day despite living far apart.

Simply put. Its in our nature. Those who miss the opportunity will almost always regret it.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

We are meant to procreate.

Says who? Are people who marry in their later years meant to? Are people who are infertile meant to?

Simply put. Its in our nature. Those who miss the opportunity will almost always regret it.

How do you know this? And if an LGBT couple really need to extend their family, they can adopt or surrogate.

I always thought it was a matter of course.

Load of reactionary old pony. A loving bond can exist in any relationship, not just heteros who reproduce.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Sugita kun said: "They don't make children. In other words, they lack 'productivity.'"

Wake up call: The planet is busting at the seams with overpopulation. If anything we need more, not less of Sugita's so called 'Unproductive" Gay and LBGTQs for population control.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Ahh Disillusioned and his old hammer and nail in Japan philosophy. I have only heard this often from foreigners here that don’t speak Japanese and aren’t familiar with the culture. Anytime they see something they don’t agree with they pull out the Japanese proverb they heard 30 years ago. If you spoke Japanese and understood Japan you’d see how narrow minded that is.

@thepersoniamnow, is it really a J proverb? I mean it looks an awful lot like australia's (and other nations) very own "tall poppy syndrome" i.e. the tendency as a group/society to bring down high-achievers & successful ppl (as in 'to cut down tall poppies'). I think you're being a little paranoid here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

thepersoniamnowToday 08:12 am JST

If unproductive literally means “won’t produce” then yes and thank you.

Overpopulation is the fuel that feeds global climate change and many wars and problems.

My gay baker would disagree, he is everyday producing some wonderful bread for the pleasure of the neighbourhood.

StrangerlandToday 08:05 am JST

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

You may as well ask why we don't have wings. If you believe in intelligent design, or a god, you'll have to ask the designers/god. If you believe in evolution, it's because we never evolved that way.

I am always surprised to read that evolution can still be a matter of belief ...

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Eppee

Actually I didn’t mean that in support of her comment...I know she’s bashing gay people on the side and I don’t agree with that at all. I meant she should redefine her definition.

I think that the government sees a population as tax revenue and thus they want more.

Goldorak

I agree I don’t need to say that, I don’t think it’s paranoia...that’s a bit much. Also when people try to use it to try to define Japan as a place where nobody innovates or can say anything, I believe that to be true to an extent, but also misguided and misused. Especially if the user doesn’t speak Japanese, and is using it because of the resulting frustrations they have.

What I am saying is, I often hear people quoting that, but I think it’s misguided and misused. Just like the sexless Japan headline you read, then when you get to any major city here you see streets of nothing but love hotels, and you realize it’s a another kind of sex problem.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The entire discussion is about someone speaking out with her opinion about the fact that as long as we are human animal there is a need for two sexes in order to mate to reproduce. The fact is, to "live" is basically to find the best way to reproduce offspring with the ability to continue to reproduce. Animals and plants by having sexes (at least for now) provide the diversity needed to adjust to the changing environment we call the universe.

It has nothing to do with rights and privileges and idealized societies. To be "productive" in the larger picture of things, for any living organism, the prime objective is to be able to reproduce.

It has nothing to do with social, or economic productivity. It has nothing to do with recognition, acceptance, and respect of one sex or the sexless.

But most important is that she has the right to speak her mind, wanted or not, agreeable or not, and controversial or not. That at least is allowed in Japan.

Depending on your perspective and orientation, there will be differences in opinions. But right and wrong is a judgment call. That is a matter that history, a hundred years from now may answer.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"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.'" ….....

Ludicrous, nonsensical, asinine, lacking intellect and judgment. the LGBT community or the pink Yen, to coin and phase, surveys (catalyst) suggest that 5.6% of the japans population is *LGBT**. *

Although I am wary of these numbers, as few are willing to discuss lifestyle choices, gender orientation etc etc However if correct represents 12% of the nations disposable income.

For any politician to erroneously pitch “spending taxpayers' money for LGBT couples gain approval?” is preposterously absurd. The LGBT community is an essential revenue element for the MOF.

Both Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa inequity, is targeted at there own tax paying constituents whose spending power is essential for there local economy.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The fact is, to "live" is basically to find the best way to reproduce offspring with the ability to continue to reproduce.

You and this lawmaker seem to think heterosexuals will disappear if same-sex unions are allowed or supported in anyway. They won't. Your premise is faulty.

But most important is that she has the right to speak her mind, wanted or not, agreeable or not, and controversial or not.

Where did you get the impression that anyone is trying to stop her from speaking her mind? People are simply exercising their right to disagree with her.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

For Eppee-the point being that your gay baker is producing delicious baked goods that you and the people in your neighborhood have pleasure in buying.

Mrs. Sugita wants more taxpayers to pay for her useless salary and the hereditarily entitled progeny she squirts out and whom will have no choice in the matter.:)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Itsonlyrocknroll....

Please consider the fact that heterosexual couples can produce children who in turn can produce children who in turn....therefore in the vast majority of cases heterosexual couples overall contribute far greater to the economy than LGBTQ couples do. This statistical fact is what Ms. Sugita was pointing to.

Thus the logical deduction that because of the statistically greater return of investment it's preferable for the government to invest taxpayers money into heterosexual couples.

No disrespect to LGBTQ couples intended. Just good business sense for the community' greater good.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Thus the logical deduction that because of the statistically greater return of investment it's preferable for the government to invest taxpayers money into heterosexual couples.

Then the logical solution is invest taxpayers money on couples (singles even) that are raising children, regardless of sexual orientation.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

MrBum:

I think that's fair.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Only took them... what... a week and a half? and only after Sugita drew flack, as did the LDP, for letting it go without saying anything. In any case, they won't do a thing about it, so it's just the usual lip-service.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Thus the logical deduction that because of the statistically greater return of investment it's preferable for the government to invest taxpayers money into heterosexual couples.

My baker is paying his taxes, health insurance, retirement fund, unemployement fund, and he won't have kids to enjoy all of his participation, so I think we could argue his family is contributing more financially to the society than a person with a kid that will use this money.

Also if you want to invest only based on "return to investment" I guess you could only focus on high salaries and let the middle, low middle class down, we don't need them ...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Biologically humans of the same sex cannot reproduce.

Lesbians can, and do, have children. Have you never heard of artificial insemination?

No man, gay or otherwise, can have children. To criticise gay men as being "unproductive" makes no sense.

Ms Sugita is not only prejudiced, she is incorrect.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Epee and Scrote:

I think we should look at common sense facts here. That is that heterosexual couples, on average, produce far more children, grandchildren etc. than LGBTQ couples do and so it's good economic sense to invest more into them. Having said that, I agree with Mrbum who posted 'Then the logical solution is invest taxpayers money on couples (singles even) that are raising children, regardless of sexual orientation.'

Fair, don't you think?

Ps: Ms. Sugita didn't call LGBTQ people 'unproductive'. She said they 'lack productivity', I believe in comparison to the average heterosexual couple and so the greater emphasis on supporting heterosexual unions.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

As MrBum suggested, the logical solution is invest taxpayers money on couples (singles even) that are raising children, regardless of sexual orientation. Besides that the govt can invest in childless LGBTQ couples and singles the same way as it invests in childless heterosexual couples and singles. I think that's fair.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Hi Concerned Citizen, I firmly believe that all elected MP/Dietary members must represent all constituents, every last one of them.

Sorry to labour this point, I feel it is an elected members duty, irrespective of the electorates sexual orientation, lifestyle choices, whether or not on the weekends dressing up like widow twankey warbling Y.M.C.A. up and down the local thoroughfare, frankly I could not give a monkey's uncle.

Surely we are all tax payers.

I, a women soon to reach thirty, I suspect as many men, have chosen to delay wedlock for a number of reasons, however contribute admirably to Japan tax revenue collector.

Child birth to define Productivity cannot be a measure of devotion and support to any sovereign state. Some who remain unmarried have chosen to pursue businesses interests, have a degree of treasured independence and wish remain that way until cupid arrow squarely hits the mark.

I suspect that sooner or later I will become a target for Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa persistent nagging. The selfish singleton.

Does that make me any less deserving of future tax payer provided public services?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Concerned Citizen,

I'm glad you agree with my point, but when you consider this lawmaker's other comment "Why can't sexes be just two -- man and woman?" it's pretty clear she doesn't share your idea of fairness. You're giving her way too much credit.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

itsonlyrocknroll

I think this is a matter of prioritizing allocation of limited government resources. Not only in this matter, but in any field, the govt has to commit public funded resources to where it does the greater good. That is not a disrespect to those of us who miss out. In the solution Mrbum and I proposed there is equality and equal opportunity, the criteria being raising children.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

MrBum:

I'm only commenting on the 'lacking productivity' part of her comments. Other questions she raised are separate matters and don't negate the truth of the 'lack of productivity' part and it's impact on where govt resources are allocated.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Concerned Citizen, the limited government resources could be the result of across the board policy failures. A lack of child day care provision, the still on going disparity between income groups and labour contract irregularities.

I am interested with your comment.....with the informal us

That is not a disrespect to those of us who miss out?

If not personal and appears to reflect thread context.

Is there a link between , Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa ideology and your materiel/social welfare? not a trick or loaded question.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknroll:

I meant that when any govt allocates resources there are those who get what they want, those who don't and those in between. Sometimes we just miss out.

What do you mean by 'Is there a link between , Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa ideology and your materiel/social welfare?'?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The decision to have children, or not, should be made by the individuals concerned and the likes of Ms Sugita and other LDP clowns have no business telling people what they should and should not do.

I couldn't care less about the low birth rate in Japan. If more people are needed they can accept more immigrants. The world has no shortage of people.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Concerned Citizen

Clearly my nosiness has got the better of me, please ignore.

I am canvassing your circumstances in reflection, forgive me, suggesting your sentiment/support for Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa political ideology.

Maybe I misconstrued previous comments in a number of threads applicable to economic and social contribution to society?

My humble opinion is, a danger, minority groups are being scapegoated for government policy failures in social care provision, which explains quote the "belated" action and "lenient" attitude toward Sugita.

Mio Sugita, Tomu Tanigawa are nothing more than political cannon fodder.

Hapless and witless, a similarity one could subscribe to a multitude of politicians the world over.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Scrote:

I don't think that Ms. Sugita was telling people what to do regarding childbearing. She commented on where the govt should allocate resources. Preferably to heterosexual couples in her opinion.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Pity how some seem to think LGBT couples have to justify their financial worth, their productivity and their family credentials to fit in to this happy life.

Why is it down to politicians and others to dictate who gets to love who for whatever reasons?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Toasted Heretic:

I think every segment/member of society or private company has to prove the value of thier contribution before being allocated govt or anyone elses resources. That's the way things work. We are all equal in this respect.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Itsonlyrocknroll:

No problem about your question at all.

Regarding minority groups suffering due to govt policy failures I think we should prioritize demographics like the sick (cancer, etc), homeless, orphans and children in general.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Just gunna add my 2 cents on the debate about kidz and them caring for you....

I know of just as many who hate their parents and would never even visit or speak much less care for them when its time to.

So the notion that you

/have kidz/become happy/grow old/be loved and cared for/

its a nice thought. I’d say to have that 50% of the time is generous.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

LGBT has no place in politics. Keep sex out of it.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Okiblue:

Don't you think that LGBTQ people should have just as much right to be involved in politics as anyone else?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In a statement posted on its website Wednesday, the LDP said a magazine article written by Mio Sugita "shows her lack of understanding of (LGBT) issues and consideration for the feelings of people involved," while noting that the party is working to create a society friendlier to sexual minorities.

That took them a while, didn't it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

LGBT has no place in politics. Keep sex out of it.

I think what you meant to say is sexual discrimination has no place in politics. You cannot keep people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans, out of politics no more than you can keep heterosexual people out of politics.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yeah, just like that other scandal about making sure as few women as possible make it to medical school, etc, this vile woman is saying things which most LDP politicians think. This is purely damage control, at the very last minute, to make sure voters don't abandon them.

> Tomu Tanigawa, was found to have said on a recently aired internet TV program that a same-sex relationship is "something like a hobby."

This excuse of a human is living on another planet. I don't ever recall anybody being murdered for collecting postage stamps or a child thrown out of their homes because he or she liked doing watercolour painting in their spare time.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

JimizoAug. 3 11:17 am JSTAs I grow older, Ill have the benefit of having a loving, dedicated son or daughter to help look after me.

Perhaps they’ll be too busy with their own kids or jobs to do that. Unless they are childless slackers, they probably won’t have enough time.

Talk about placing burdens on others.

What a spoiled, dependent mindset.

Absolutely. Children should not give up their own lives, families, careers to tend to their parents like that. Once someone reaches maturity, that person should fly away. To raise your kids to be your personal nurses, maids, etc. is not raising them well. Raising a child to be a rock and not grow - that's a sin, and crime against humanity. Children need to become adults - not 'mama's boys' or 'daddy's girls'.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Love begets love. My own siblings and I are sharing the care of our elderly parents. Our parents don't demand it of us but it's the least we can do for them after they gave us life and sacrificed to have and raise us. I think this is a natural process at work.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The answer is simple, if LBGT is unproductive because they don't reproduce, don't let them marry. In that same vein, make it illegal for straight couples to marry if they dont have children or plan to. What? That's idiotic? Yeah, it's really goddamn stupid.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

An interesting interview from Tomomi Inada.....

More understanding of sexual minorities needed in Japan: Ex-defense minister Inada......

http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180802/p2a/00m/0na/003000c

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The answer is simple, if LBGT is unproductive because they don't reproduce, don't let them marry. In that same vein, make it illegal for straight couples to marry if they dont have children or plan to. What? That's idiotic? Yeah, it's really goddamn stupid.

Actually it makes perfect sense and something I would support wholeheartedly. The entire point of marriage, and the reason why the government hands out tax breaks and other goodies for being in one, is because of children. That's literally the entire reason that marriage comes with state-sanctioned financial benefits, otherwise it would make no sense for the state to offer them. They're simply making an investment in future taxpayers.

So yes, people who don't plan on having OR raising children shouldn't get some of the benefits of marriage. Of course there's a more nuanced approach than just making it illegal to marry, but the lawmaker was actually raising a valid point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The lawmaker was not making a valid point. She was spouting discriminatory rhetoric designed to attack LGBTQ and raise public sentiment against them. What she is doing is putting voice to hate.

All people are equal in society, which means equally deserving of benefits that come from being productive and paying taxes. Just because someone doesn't have children doesn't mean that when they are in need they can be ignored. We all should equally benefit from the group effort of paying taxes that are used for government programs, from infrastructure to police to medical.

To argue otherwise is saying that people are not all equal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Productivity is measured by economic output facts and figures. Those who have criticised Ms. Sugita's remarks can you please provide the statistics that prove that the economic output of LGBTQ couples is equal on average to heterosexual couples?

Could you please back up your arguments with facts.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Could you please back up your arguments with facts.

Hang on. You want LGBTQ couples to justify their existence? Sugita offered an unpleasant and ill informed opinion, not facts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic:

In a democratic, capitalistic society everyone has to prove thier economic output before being invested in. We're all equal in this respect.

Eg 1: Two people apply for the same job. Who gets it? The one who can contribute more to the company.

So again I ask please provide the statistics backing up the equal productivity argument.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Eg 1: Two people apply for the same job. Who gets it? The one who can contribute more to the company.

Based on merit, experience - sure. But what does that have to do with a person's marital status? How does that impact on productivity?

Unless it's a single person with no ties who can do oodles of overtime for the company, if that's what you mean.

So again I ask please provide the statistics backing up the equal productivity argument.

I'm not aware of statistics that claim hetero couples are more productive than LGBT couples. Maybe you or Sugita are?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic:

Obviously procreating heterosexual 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.

I have provided a fact that supports Ms. Sugita's comment.

Can those who criticized her provide any facts or stats to refute this?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Productivity is measured by economic output facts and figures.

Why is productivity purely economic? Who decided that? Where and when was it announced? Inquiring minds want to know!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Obviously procreating heterosexual 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.

And obviously folk without kids, hetero or LGBT can spend more time being productive at the office than those who take maternity/paternity leave or having to leave the office early because of child-related issues. Both spouses can be relied to work at any time, seeing as they don't have kids. Both of them can be in full time employment.

And of course, LGBT couples who adopt or have kids via surrogacy/IV etc - their kids can contribute as well, even going on to have kids of their own.

What a wonderful world we live in, where people don't have to justify their very existence.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland:

Ms. Sugita was commenting on spending tax payer's money. An economic issue.

Sugita wrote, "Can spending taxpayers' money for LGBT couples gain approval? They don't make children. In other words, they lack 'productivity.'"

In order to justify economic investment we have to prove the return on investment.

So where are the statistics backing up the equal productivity argument?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ms. Sugita was commenting on spending tax payer's money. An economic issue.

Um, did you not read what she said?

In the 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.'"

Sure, she commented on whether or not to spend tax payers money on LGBT. But as far as what she was talking about in regards to productivity, it was not economical at all. She defined productivity as having children, and claimed LGBT members were unproductive because they don't (which, isn't even entirely true). She never related productivity to economic issues whatsoever.

Can you please try to keep track both of what you are arguing, and what you are defending? It will make things go smoother.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Strangerland:

I believe that Ms. Sugita was referring to the fact that heterosexual couples have children who have children....all those children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. contributing to the economy.

Eg: A couple has 2 children. Those children in turn have 2 children each and so on. In the long run the heterosexual couple will produce far more productive people than the vast majority of LGBTQ couples whose productivity is limited to themselves.

Does this make economic sense? I believe it does and is not meant to be demeaning to LGBTQ couples.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I believe that Ms. Sugita was referring to the fact that heterosexual couples have children who have children....all those children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. contributing to the economy.

Then you're projecting, because that's not what she said.

Eg: A couple has 2 children. Those children in turn have 2 children each and so on. In the long run the heterosexual couple will produce far more productive people than the vast majority of LGBTQ couples whose productivity is limited to themselves.

How about this:

Woman gets pregnant by Man, creating Child. Woman gives up Child for adoption. Child grows up in foster homes, never feels a connection to society, grows doing part-time jobs, not particularly contributing or taking away from the economy.

Or...

Woman gets pregnant by Man, creating Child. Woman gives up Child for adoption. Child is adopted by LGBT couple who takes care of them as their own. Child grows into a productive member of society, giving back more than Child takes.

How exactly is the heterosexual couple productive (by your definition) in the first example? And how is the LGBT couple in the second example not productive (by your definition)?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Eg: A couple has 2 children. Those children in turn have 2 children each and so on. In the long run the heterosexual couple will produce far more productive people than the vast majority of LGBTQ couples whose productivity is limited to themselves.

And of course, LGBT couples who adopt or have kids via surrogacy/IV etc - their kids can contribute as well, everyone's a winner.

is not meant to be demeaning to LGBTQ couples.

Sure, sure. You've moved on from productivity at work to child bearing. As I said previously, LGBT couples who don't have kids can both work and spend more time at said work. Being productive. And those that do have kids, are just like any other productive family. Said kids can grow up and have kids as well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic and Strangerland:

You've both posed situations that are beyond the norm.

Overall and on average heterosexual couples via thier own work and that of succeeding generations of offspring that they produce will contribute more to society, thus greater investment into heterosexual couples.

All governments and private business and individuals operate this way? Wouldn't you with your money?

Again, no disrespect to LGBTQ couples intended.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You've both posed situations that are beyond the norm.

Nope, just highlighting the preposterous argument that heterosexuals are worth more respect than LGBT peoples.

All governments and private business and individuals operate this way? Wouldn't you with your money?

I'm talking about human beings, not companies. The former should not have to justify their worth to a bigoted LDP member.

Again, no disrespect to LGBTQ couples intended.

Ha, ha.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Toasted Heretic:

Heterosexuals are definitely NOT more worthy of respect than LGBTQ people.

Ms. Sugita's point was about allocation of govt resources, not respect. The govt doesn't grant driver's licences to many disabled people. Is this out of disrespect or discrimination? No. Neither is it a commentary on the worth of the disabled.

Allocation of govt resources to the most long term productive people is just common sense and wise utilization of public funds.

Therefore, as I proposed earlier, the govt ought to support parents of children equally regardless of sexual orientation. I think that's a fair solution. Don't you?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You've both posed situations that are beyond the norm.

1) So?

2) Those outside the norm don’t count? Do they get excepted from paying taxes as a nod to their not counting due to being outside the ‘norm’?

3) Neither women giving up children for adoption nor LGBT couples raising them is beyond the norm.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Therefore, as I proposed earlier, the govt ought to support parents of children equally regardless of sexual orientation. I think that's a fair solution.

What say you Strangerland and Toasted Heretic?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Therefore, as I proposed earlier, the govt ought to support parents of children equally regardless of sexual orientation.

What about heterosexuals who choose not to have children? Do they not benefit society if they don't have children?

Sugita is trying to claim public money should not be spent on LGBT, as they do not have children (which again, isn't entirely accurate). You yourself said:

I think it entirely fair for the government to prefer to spend tax payers money on child bearing couples because such couples obviously produce a far greater and perpetual economic and social contribution to society.

This is different to what you claimed to have proposed earlier. You said it's fair for the government to spend tax payers money on "child bearing couples". But now you are switching it to 'parents regardless of sexual orientation'.

The government already does provide support to heterosexual couples who have children, both in various services, as well as tax breaks and child allowances. It will cost money to set up the system to allow LGBT to adopt children, and then to treat them the same as heterosexual couples in the system. Sugita's comments make it appear that she wouldn't approve such money, because LGBT can't have the kids themselves (and again, not entirely accurate).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Whatever she or I or anyone else said, I'm proposing what I feel is a fair solution. That is, to support children of any parents regardless of marital status, sexuality or anything else.

What do you think?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever she or I or anyone else said, I'm proposing what I feel is a fair solution. That is, to support children of any parents regardless of marital status, sexuality or anything else.

I agree.

And we disagree with her.

To ask the other side of the question, do you feel non-parental people, heterosexual or LGBT, should face negative consequences for not choosing to raise children?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm glad we agree.

I don't entirely disagree with her point. It was valid. However a solution seems more nuanced than what she commented on. As some on this thread have pointed out, there are heterosexual people who don't have children and there are LGBTQ who do. So in the best interest of the children I proposed the solution.

In answer to your question, no I don't think anyone should face negative legal consequences for not raising children. It's obviously a personal decision.

However, I believe in Japan and in other countries we are experiencing the negative results of too low birthrates. Collectively we may suffer economically if too many of us choose not to have kids at all or too few.

Also I believe there can also be some personal loss of the joy of child raising and loving offspring to care for us in our old age.

But again we have to decide these things personally.

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