How Progressive Is Japan

[coolfuze]

Then why pick on the gays, or anybody for that matter? Same-sex couples also do raise children sometimes.

Yeah but they don't produce them and guys can't get periods

 

[Lacius]

Yeah but they don't produce them and guys can't get periods

Neither do infertile couples, elderly couples, nor couples who just decide they don't want kids. So, as I've stated several times, why aren't people trying to make those marriages illegal?

 

[RaptorDMG]

Neither do infertile couples, elderly couples, nor couples who just decide they don't want kids. So, as I've stated several times, why aren't people trying to make those marriages illegal?

Probably because male + female = kids (with a few exceptions) and (fe)male + (fe)male never makes kids

 

[Lacius]

Probably because male + female = kids (with a few exceptions) and (fe)male + (fe)male never makes kids

• Male + elderly female ≠ kids
• Infertile male + female ≠ kids
• Male + infertile female ≠ kids
• Male + female who don't want kids ≠ kids

To be consistent, you can't be against legal same-sex marriage without also being against the above marriages, unless you're being disingenuous and there's another reason.

 

[kuwanger]

Probably because male + female = kids (with a few exceptions) and (fe)male + (fe)male never makes kids

1 in 4 men, 1 in 7 women in Japan still unmarried at age 50: report So, uh, yea... Of course you can have kids without a spouse, but at least supposedly that's uncommon--not sure how true it is versus just how many kids are dumped in orphanages to avoid the "shame" and therefore uncounted (or if it's the other way around). :/

 

[RaptorDMG]

• Male + elderly female ≠ kids
• Infertile male + female ≠ kids
• Male + infertile female ≠ kids
• Male + female who don't want kids ≠ kids

To be consistent, you can't be against legal same-sex marriage without also being against the above marriages, unless you're being disingenuous and there's another reason.

I really don't care about marriage but it's main function in the past was to provide a stable home environment to raise a family and what I'm saying is that male and females in most cases can produce a child (that excludes infertile women(but how would anyone know anyway) and elderly people who were able to reproduce in the past).

A male + male or female + female can never reproduce on their own at any stage of their life.

 

[Lacius]

I really don't care about marriage but it's main function in the past was to provide a stable home environment to raise a family and what I'm saying is that male and females in most cases can produce a child (that excludes infertile women(but how would anyone know anyway) and elderly people who were able to reproduce in the past).

A male + male or female + female can never reproduce on their own at any stage of their life.

1. That was not the main function of marriage in the past.
2. To be consistent, you still can't advocate for making one kind of childless marriage illegal while not advocating for other kinds of childless marriage also being illegal. If you still think same-sex marriage should be illegal but other childless marriages should be legal, then you have another reason that you haven't stated.
3. Not all same-sex marriages are childless, regardless of what can or can't be biologically produced. Adopted children, children from surrogacy, children from previous relationships, etc. still require stable home environments.

 

[dAVID_]

Might get some hate for this, but the motherfuckers ain't breeding. If they're not breeding, and people also want to be gay as well, well, the government is going to go into panic mode.

Which, this seems like why they banned it.

..Not sure actually why but I feel like this may be one of the reasons.

Heterosexual people cannot be converted into homosexual people.
That doesn't work.
This argument would only work if a majority of the population was bisexual.

 

[notimp]

...because times are a changing...

Abe-led panel adopts new visa plan to accept 500,000 low-skilled laborers by 2025
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...plan-accept-500000-low-skilled-laborers-2025/

What would the european right say to such a plan I'm wondering..

 

[kuwanger]

From notimp's link:
'
But Yoshio Kimura, chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s special committee on issues related to foreign workers, said the number is not enough. Two years ago, the committee called for allowing more than 900,000 new foreign laborers be let in.
“Some 500,000 is not enough at all. Some people who don’t know about the reality (of the Japanese economy) must have just made up that figure,” Kimura told The Japan Times during an interview earlier this week.
“Over the next 100 years, Japan’s population will become something like 40 million (from the current 126 million). We definitely need foreign workers. We need young people who can support elderly people,” he said.
'

And people wonder why I think open borders are generally a good idea Everything you see reported in Japan is pretty much the destiny of (every?) developed country(s). Even China is risking the drive towards depopulation in the long term. The funny thing is that Europe let in a lot of immigrants as temporary refugees who are supposed to return when their home country stabilizes (with a deadline of 3 years, IIRC), but long term they'd probably be better off with the people staying.

Assimilation, though, is admittedly a difficult thing to deal with en masse. Social safety nets are difficult to fund even in the best of circumstances. I do wonder, though, how you begin to qualify the damage that comes from chronic labor shortages.

 

[regnad]

Twelve year resident of Japan here.

I've worked as a university teacher, and taught a zillion students. Like America, young people here are largely in favor of same sex marriage, or at least don't really care. Also like America young people don't vote. The political apathy among the young is much much worse here in fact. Also like America the government is set up in such a way that rural areas have a disproportionately powerful voice. Rural areas here are overwhelmingly elderly, and like anywhere in the world elderly people are conservative.

So there you are. If they had a referendum in Japan for same sex marriage and each person of legal voting age HAD to vote, and each vote counted equally, I imagine recognizing same sex marriage would win, although it would be close. But that's not the case. Some urban areas, such as Harajuku in Tokyo, recognize same sex marriage already.

 

[anhminh]

Unban gay marriage and legalized rape and we solve all the problem.

Joke aside, the reason for it is because Japan's government are very oldschool. Most of them are coming from the golden age of Japan and so they thing that the old value are the reason Japan was great back then so the last thing they want is to change that. That and homophobia is pretty much the most long stayed thing in Asian culture. They are not actively hunting for gay or anything but no one want to accept it is a thing either. They cover such relationship in history by using brotherhood or loyalty or something similar like that. So yeah, legalized gay marriage won't change much how everyone see it and it may backslash on some politician since their supporter may hate the idea so no one would want to push it.