Concerned Citizen comments

@San Miguel

Well said.

Prosecute violent, harsh and abusive discipline done in anger that causes obvious physical harm. Encourage non corporal forms of discipline as much as possible. But, allow moderate slaps on the hand and bottom that hurt very temporarily and get the point across. Some kids, younger ones especially, just won't behave otherwise.

Don't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Been very happily married for 30 years, fantastic wife is Japanese, bunch of great kids. Life is great.

There are many negative factors at play here in Japan.

Immature guys having grown up on video games, manga. etc, whose dads didn't give them an example of how to relate to women. The economy is poor and so are they.

Immature women who were spoilt as girls and who are very materialistic have had poor education regarding men, relationships, sex, marriage and childbearing.

Etc. etc. Poor Japan. As much as I love it, I feel sorry for all the lonely people here.

@Strangerland

Why get married when you can just buy?

You can't buy decades of companionship.

Again, we'll said.

@Strangerland

I've never had a relationship with another human being like the one I have with my wife. Being a partnership, we both succeed or fail with each other, so it's in both our interests to ensure we succeed. We are also raising two kids in which we both are fully invested in ensuring a quality life. This has given me a person I can talk with like no one else in my life - including my parents and kids. I wouldn't have this same relationship if we were not married. And to be clear - that's separate from love.

Marriage is a risk no doubt. If mine ever were to fall apart, I suspect I may not get married again, since I won't have any more children.

But as far as it goes, I have never (seriously) regretted getting married, and the longer we're together, the stronger our bond gets. I would have never had that if I were of the belief that marriage provides no value.

Well done and said Strangerland. Heartwarming.

@IzureHikaru

Why is this particular religion always so particular about how other people live their life?

I have no problem with how others live their lives as long as they are not hurting me or anyone else. Also I agree that pressuring others to change sexual lifestyle is wrong.

But a problem made apparent in this article is not that people of 'this particular religion' are so particular of how other people live their life. The problem is a particular group of people (radical LGBTQ activitists) being particular about how parents discuss matters of sexuality with their own children and forcing their agenda into homes and schools without parental knowledge or consent.

The minute they try to pass a law that denies us the right to share a private opinion on sexuality with our kids is the minute we parents will fight for our basic human rights to freedom of thought and conscience. It is absolutely none of their business and they should stay out of our private lives just as they wish us to stay out of theirs. That is fair.

Pressuring anyone to change their sexual orientation or to do anything else for that matter is just wrong.

However let's no go overboard by banning any sort of opinion given by a parent or other person (with parent's permission) to a child. That would be a violation of parental rights. There are valid reasons why a parent can (without anger or pressure) suggest to their children to consider a heterosexual lifestyle.

The threat of AIDS is one. Also having children is very fulfilling and will leave you with someone/s to care for you in your old age. -More likely in a heterosexual relationship.

Nothing wrong with merely suggesting the above, but if you read the proposed 'ban gay conversation therapy' laws' carefully, what constitutes 'therapy' is not clearly defined and thus even parental suggestions will be outlawed. This is the goal of some radical LGBTQ activists. (Besides forcing LGBTQ lifestyle promotional courses into schools without parental knowledge or consent)

And what about LGBTQ people who WANT to change thier orientation because they are afraid of getting AIDS or wanna have kids or whatever? They can't go to a counselor? They must stay gay?

The LGBTQ community has thankfully won it's right to freedom and non discrimination. Now let us parents be free to counsel and teach our (not yours) kids as we wish.

@rainyday

Thanks for clarifying......

However my point remains. Gay marriage is getting approved on the basis of 'equality and non discrimination'. Therefore, it logically follows that we thus cannot deny marriage licenses to any combination that demands it and your or my opinion means nothing.

But we aren't talking about polygamous marriages,

In considering weather to legalize gay marriage we must consider the obvious ramifications.

Again, nothing against you personally. Just stating the reality of the situation.

Cheers.

@rainyday

but that doesn't change the underlying fact that barring them from getting married in the first place makes no sense at all.

Does this mean that you think that barring polygamist unions (of any number), incestuous unions (of any number), and every other combination of unions makes no sense?

@rainyday

My point was that, to the other groups of people who seek marriage recognition, your or my opinion means absolutely nothing. They will claim 'bigotry, discrimination and hatred, no matter what you or I think or say. They will fight for 'equality' in the courts on the basis that limiting marriage to two people, or certain combinations is 'discriminatory'.

@rainyday

Polygamy isn't a workable model and creates a lot of problems which aren't posed by same sex marriage. The biggest is that polygamy in almost every society where it does exist is based on a social structure in which one man has multiple wives (rather than one woman having multiple husbands). In addition to gender equality concerns, this also introduces inherent instabilities into societies - wealthy older men are able to monopolize the available female population by marrying large numbers of them, creating an underclass of younger and poorer males who have no realistic options of ever marrying because there aren't enough potential female partners left. The societies created by fundamentalist Mormon communities which have practiced polygamy have all had this problem and controlling the conflict it engenders is likely one of the reasons most (not all of course) major religions favored monogamy historically.

Same sex marriage doesn't create any external problems for society as a whole like that.

If the basis for agreeing to gay marriage is 'equality and non discrimination', then you must also agree to the demands of recognition by polygamists, incestuous couples/throuples/ quadrouples, etc, etc regardless of your views about them. Otherwise they will rightly accuse you of discrimination, bigotry and hatefulness. You might also be socially shunned for your 'bigoted and outdated views', lose your job for expressing them, and legally punished for any refusing to serve them in any business venture you happen to engage in.

Nothing personal towards you. Just outlining the reality of where this is all going.

Cheers.

@WilliB

You see where this is going. If we grant marriage licenses to members of the LGBTQ+ community on the basis of 'equality'. 'human rights' etc then we have no basis to 'discriminate' against polygamists. This would include 'marriages' of any number of members.

Spot on. I have seen lots of emotional huffing and puffing, when bringing up this point, but not a logical answer. Fact is, polygamy does have a long historical tradition, and it is actually a working model to set up a family (although not one I agree on). Two people of the same sex have no historical precedence, for obvious reasons.

Those advocating LGBTQ+ marriage on the basis of equality and non discrimination, however sincere they might be, just seem to be unable to admit that it logically follows that they must then agree to polygamist marriages of any number, incestuous marriages and every other combination imaginable because to oppose such unions will be 'discriminatory, bigoted, etc.

@Strangerland

Me:

So let's be fair and open minded and grant them marriage licenses too. After all 'love is love' right?

You:

Well, we can deal with people who would like to exercise a preference next.

First lets deal with the people who are being restricted of basic human rights, mmmkay?

Deal with them next?

You are suggesting discrimination against polygamists, Mormons, and Muslims to be relegated to the back of the line. Are LGBTQ+ unions superior to theirs? Aren't these other groups being denied their basic human rights?

You see where this is going. If we grant marriage licenses to members of the LGBTQ+ community on the basis of 'equality'. 'human rights' etc then we have no basis to 'discriminate' against polygamists. This would include 'marriages' of any number of members.

Then of course there are those who wish to have their incestuous unions legalized. (father/daughter, brother/sister, etc). And then those who............etc, etc.

Do you agree with granted these groups their human rights to marriage?

@Jimizo

Why? As long as the religious are allowed the right not to conduct same-sex marriages, their rights are not being infringed.

Then why are Christian wedding venues, bakers, florists, photographers etc being sued, harassed, forced to close etc because they are not interested in participating in LGBTQ weddings?

Note that these same people will offer their services to LGBTQ people for anything else.

Who said marriage is limited to two people? Why are we discriminating against Muslims, Mormons and other polygamists who wish to have thier unions recognized. Do we not understand the pain they are enduring at having to 'stay in the closet', suffer outdated bigoted attitudes, etc. What business is it of ours who they love or what they do in the bedroom? They were born that way, thier sexuality is not thier choice.

So let's be fair and open minded and grant them marriage licenses too. After all 'love is love' right?

@ Jimizo

It looks like you might not be aware of what the Bible really says about these things.......I don't blame you because unfortunately many misguided churches and Christians like Israel Folau give this impression.

It is spelled out clearly in the Old Testament that homosexuality is to be punished by execution.

That law was 'on the books' but you never actually read any accounts of the sentence carried out despite homosexuality being common at the time. The death sentence was also mandated for many other 'sins' like adultery, idolatry, etc. but also never carried out, also despite those things being very common. In the New Testament Jesus claims to give all people, including gays a free pardon no matter what the 'sin'.

Nor did he repudiate slavery.

Jesus said that the ultimate commandment is to 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. Obviously this is a specific prohibition of slavery as well as any other mistreatment of anyone. I doubt you'll find a sincere Christian anywhere in the whole world that condones slavery much less practises it.

He talks about eternal punishment for the ‘wrong’ beliefs.

According to the Bible anyone, gay or otherwise, can get a free pass to eternal life in heaven IF THEY WANT IT. If they don't want it they are free to go to other places in the next life where they would feel more comfortable. The worst of these places is 'hell' reserved for the worst of unrepentant evil doers (think Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, child rapists, etc ) where, yes, they will be punished. The average good person who just doesn't believe in Jesus and doesn't wanna hang around Him in Heaven WON'T go to 'hell' but rather to other places in the next life where they will live much as they do now. The only reason they won't go to heaven is because they don't want to. But they will be welcome to enter if they want to hang around Jesus forever.

I could share all the scriptures that show this but don't want to take up too much space. I hope that clears up some misunderstandings you have.

Cheers.

@Jimizo

this is not repudiated later.

Just to clarify for you................

You won't find any account of execution of any homosexuals in the Bible even though gays were common within Old Testament Jewish society. Present day Christians have absolutely no such doctrines or laws either.

Jesus himself never in any way whatsoever suggested to execute or mistreat homosexuals, drunks, atheists, adulterers. etc much less execute them. Read John chapter 8 about how Jesus handled the about to be stoned adulterous woman. He challenged her would be executioners saying 'Whoever of you is without sin can first throw a stone at her'. -Exposing their hypocrisy. So they left her alone. Then He forgave her for her betrayal of her husband and let her go compassionately, suggesting she get her life in order.

No one of New Testament writers suggests execution, violence or any sort of mistreatment of any person no matter their sexual orientation, belief system or any thing else, but rather to 'Love your neighbor as your self'.

PS: I have noticed that as much as much 100 million innocent Jews, homosexuals, Christians, dissenters etc, have been killed by atheistic fascist/communist regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot. So if you are looking for actual acts of murder of innocents maybe you ought to look there.

I think that both Folau and Owen are off here.

Folau misrepresented Christianity. I didn't like what he said. While there is some Biblical truth to it, he came across judgmentally. And the Bible is clear that self righteousness and a judgemental condescending attitude are the worst sins of all. Jesus Himself never condemned the so called 'sinners' like that. Instead He loved all, and healed and forgave those who accepted Him. But Jesus did absolutely lambast the self righteous and judgemental religious leaders of the day.

As for Owen's comments.......'Born LGBTQ+' is not at all backed by science. How do you explain the many who have flipped from straight to LGBTQ+ and vice versa? This is a typical part of LGBTQ+ attack against any expression of personal dislike of their lifestyles, resistance to their bullying schools and parents to accept LGBTQ+ promotional courses into curriculums, parents trying to encourage their kids to be their birth gender rather than trans, etc.

A little more humility, honesty, mutual respect and common sense would help us all get along better I think.

In the sixties left wingers rightly campaigned for freedom of speech and against Western societies being dominated by self righteous, moralistic churches. But now that they have won the cultural war they've turned out even worse. They are the new 'scribes and pharisees'. Religious zealots with their own strict moral code, blasphemy laws and strict punishments for those 'deplorables' who 'sin'.

At least those self righteous churches built hospitals, schools and had programs for the poor. Our present day liberal cultural leaders offer us virtually nothing but sermons (Taylor Swift style) and strict enforcement. God help us.

More virtue signalling from entertainment figures. 'We're better and more moral than you. If you think differently you're a bad person. You deserve hell!'

Personally I'm not into the gay lifestyle and have an aversion to it. That's my preference. And everybody has preferences. But I don't hate them. I treat those I know with just the same respect and love as anyone else. I think the vast majority of society is the same.

Hollywood, entertainment, media elites have become just as moralistic and preachy as 1950's churches Bible bashers. Even worse.

I think she should be highly commended for remaining calm, respectful and dignified in the face of a continued barrage of personal attacks on her by the media, even about her looks. And barely a feminist stepped up to defend Sarah Sanders.

@Toasted Heretic

No actual babies are being killed. I do wish people (men) would stop laying that guilt trip on women.

I would agree with you that in the very early stages after conception 'no actual babies are being killed'. I would describe that abortion act as an unfair denial of an opportunity to have a life by people who do have a life.

But, the level of violence against the unborn and denial of thier rights gets more severe very rapidly. A 12 week fetus has every human feature as well as internal organs. They can survive outside the womb as early as 24 weeks. A 40 week fetus is as human as a newborn, but can be legally aborted in some places.

So, to be fair, the severity of the crime starts off comparatively minor but rising quickly to murder of a human.

So, I ask you the following re abortion at various stages....

1: Don't you think it is wrong to deny a pre-heartbeat (up to 6 weeks) fetus the opportunity to live by violently destroying it and removing it from its mother’s womb?

Please see fetus image here: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-6-weeks

2: Don't you think it’s a crime against an unborn child if at 3 months, it is violently dismembered, the remains vacuumed from its mother’s womb and thrown in the trash can?

Please see fetus image here: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

3: Don't you think it’s crime against an unborn child if at 9 months, it is violently dismembered, the remains vacuumed from its mother’s womb and thrown in the trash can?

Please see fetus image here: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-40-weeks

Looking forward to your reply.

@Jonorth

it's a hard decision

If the baby is just a blob of tissue with no rights, why would it be 'a hard decision'?

May the innocent and babies win the brutal war against them by heartless organizations like Planned Parenthood who profit off vulnerable women.

And may every pregnant woman, planned or not, receive every bit of support they need to help them do the most noble and difficult job in the world, bearing our future generation.

@0reo0

It's a free world. Samoa can do what it wants

But, apparently, the Samoans can't do what they want

I believe that the vast majority of Samoans just aren't interested in depictions of gay sex. The tiny minority that are can watch the movie on the Internet later. No big deal.

It's a free world. Samoa can do what it wants.

Why Jay-Z and Miley Cyrus? They should have no place alongside legends such as John Fogerty, Canned Heat, Ringo Starr, the Doobie Brothers. etc.

Double think:

1: "You're pregnant?! Congratulations on your precious little baby!"

2: "You got knocked up?! You can abort it. It's just a blob of cells."

Thought and speech police: Facebook, Google, Twitter, media and political elites, perpetually 'offended' and 'triggered' SJW's, etc. "You dared to utter something offensive! You're fired!"

It will get much worse. 1984's scenario will be fully and completely upon us or our descendants when the coming one world government rules with an iron fist. God help us all.

This is what happens when governments, sports and other governing bodies punish people merely for saying something.

I hope Israel Folau wins his case and on behalf of us all teaches the speech police a lesson.

Absolutely heartbreaking.

This is not the time to judge the parents, even if we did know all the facts, which we don't. IF they were negligent, they will pay in the worst way imaginable, by feeling responsible for the death of their precious little girl for the rest of their lives. What heavy pain that only God himself could heal.

To legalize or not to legalize? That's the question that's so tough to answer.

Looking at recent history, many of the countries that have loosened laws on marijuana and even hard drugs have developed serious drug addiction problems. Look at the needle filled streets of San Francisco.

Nations that maintain strict prohibitions on drugs don't have such addiction problems. The reality is that less people suffer and die in these countries. So I lean towards Japan maintaining it's strict stance on this issue.