/

Tokyo lawmaker says being gay is matter of ‘personal taste,’ does not merit taxpayer support

by

Staff Writer

A member of the Suginami Municipal Assembly in Tokyo is drawing flak from the LGBT community for saying gay, lesbian and bisexual people refer to themselves so out of “personal taste” and thus are not worthy of support by municipal governments.

Suginami Ward Assemblywoman Yumi Kobayashi, 27, said during an assembly session Feb. 15 that such sexual minorities are “fundamentally different” from transgender people, “who are clearly disabled and should be legally protected.”

“‘Lesbian,’ ‘gay’ and ‘bisexual’ are terms denoting sexual orientation, and it’s not medically clear whether they are disabled or not,” Kobayashi said. “Is it really necessary for local governments to spend a lot of time and money on issues relating to sexual orientation — or personal taste?”

Kobayashi is an independent lawmaker who, according to her official website, fights against wasting public money and advocates the restoration of the ward’s fiscal health. Also during the assembly session, she voiced skepticism over recent moves by Tokyo’s Shibuya and Setagaya wards to recognize same-sex unions.

The measures “could be found in violation of Article 24 and 94 of the Constitution,” she said. Article 24 stipulates marriage as an equal partnership between two sexes, while Article 94 declares the right of municipal governments to manage their affairs and enact their own charters within national laws.

She added that the difficulties faced by sexual minorities in Japan, in housing for couples and in securing access to hospitals as family members, can be “independently dealt with.”

She added that Japan is free of fierce opposition to same-sex relationships, noting that various kinds of support are available, such as counselors who offer services for sexual minorities and shrines that marry same-sex couples, as well as hospitals that treat people with gender identity disorder (GID).

Kobayashi’s comment triggered immediate criticism from Taiga Ishikawa, Japan’s first openly gay male politician and a member of the Toshima Municipal Assembly, also in Tokyo.

He said Kobayashi’s statements are riddled with misunderstandings about LGBT people and could foster further discrimination.

“The biggest problem is that she believes gay, lesbian and bisexual people are that way out of personal taste or choice, propagating the idea that they can choose their sexual orientation,” he said by phone Monday. “Her labeling of all transgender people as being disabled is also wrong. Transgender people refer to all of those with gender identity issues, not just those diagnosed with GID.”

A lesbian blogger who goes by the name of Yu Murata (@fcharu38) expressed shock at Kobayashi’s claim that Japan is more tolerant of gay people than many other countries.

“In Japan it’s so hard to say you are different,” Murata wrote on her blog. “It looks as if there is no discrimination, but LGBT people encounter a lot of difficulties, and there are many things they cannot say, worried how they are perceived by others.”

Calls to Kobayashi’s mobile phone and an email requesting comment were not returned Monday.

  • cc423

    What a horrible, ignorant, nasty woman.She is so filled with hatred and bigotry. She is Japan’s shame!

    • KietaZou

      I dunno. Nasty, yes. I suspect she’s just ignorant, w/o enough knowledge to actually be a bigot. She’s clearly the kind of stupid person who believes they are utterly rational and impeccably fair-minded, when their only quality is a ridiculous vanity and pride that’s wrapped in an utter selfishness that’s never been challenged,

    • guest

      As if you know anything about japanese culture haha

  • blondein_tokyo

    A lot of people think like her. This ignorance is the very reason that LGBT need the support she is trying so very hard to claim isn’t necessary.

    • Buck

      The article isn`t very clear, what support exactly is she arguing they shouldn`t receive? That is a far more important issue at stake here then her ignorance. Besides, she probably just meant homosexual behavior is a choice, which we all know it is.

      • blondein_tokyo

        Yes. Homoesexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. I can chose to date, kiss, touch, and have sex with my girlfriend. But HOMOSEXUALITY is not a choice, because people don’t choose who they are attracted to.
        If you think it is a choice, then I present to you the Dan Savage Challenge: prove to me that homosexuality is a choice. Prove it, by choosing homosexuality yourself. Go on. Go out there and suck a … you know what. :)
        And take pics. Cause I do love me some gay porn. LOL ;)

      • Buck

        So you agree with the law maker. She could have just as easily said, homosexual behavior is a matter of personal taste. Which is essentially what she meant in her original statement. People intuitively understand that behavior defines us rather than feeling. “Being” anything implies some type of actions or behavior. Your actions define you, your actions speak louder than words (or
        feelings). You even asked me to prove you wrong through an action, you prove me right. Having
        feelings of attractions for someone of the same sex is different than behavior, feelings are not chosen (as you said). So don`t conflate behavior with feeling. Homosexual behavior or “being gay” is not involuntary. How you feel about your sexuality (of which there a numerous types) is your
        feeling, how you act on it is your choice. As you stated, “people don’t choose who they are attracted to,” but they choose who they engage with. Some people have all sorts of various type of attractions, human sexuality is complex and varied.

        I except your challenge if you demonstrate to
        me that homosexual behavior is involuntary by engaging in sexual acts with
        every women you meet.

        Finally, before you start accusing me of
        something I never said like others on this forum have done. I will be the first to defend voluntary interactions between consenting adults, and I fully support an individual’s right to a gay lifestyle.

      • blondein_tokyo

        1) No, I don’t agree with her. I interpret her words to mean she believes that when GLBT people choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, they are actively choosing to be outside society – therefore, the government has no responsibiliy to enact any special laws to protect them or give them rights. It’s a fairly common viewpoint among lawmakers who don’t wish to give support to GLBT community, yet want to avoid saying “I won’t help you because I think you are icky.” It’s not politically correct to show your homophobia, and it risks garnering them criticisim, so they very often cloak it.
        Your interpretation is more generous to her, as you are assuming good will on her part. Which is fine; you can interpret her words as you like. However, in my view any politician who states “I will not help GLBT attain rights” is hostile to GLBT; therefore, she does not desreve the benefit of the doubt you are giving her.
        2) Yes. That is what I said – look carefully; I am *agreeing* with you. :)
        3) I said “to anyone who…” if the “who” part doesn’t descibe you, then this statement doesn’t apply to you. :)

      • Buck

        Well I didn`t read anything that stated she thinks gay
        people choose to be outside society. I don`t think the government has a responsibility to enact any special laws to protect just gay people, the laws should already be inclusive enough to protect all people. Moreover, the government should not have a role to play in validating marriage that should be left to civil society. All tax benefits should be removed, unless the couple decide to have children together. Families who produce children could potentially be given some special benefits, otherwise, remove all of the others.

      • blondein_tokyo

        The problem is, current laws don’t protect GLBT. You can’t get fired for being heterosexual, right? But you can get fired for being GLBT. A guy won’t be refused by a real estate agent for having a girlfriend or wife live with him; but he can be rejected for having a boyfriend live with him. Without specific laws that carry penalties, GLBT aren’t protected from prejudice. Laws let people bring charges to court where a judge can examine the evidence to see if prejudice really was a factor. Without those anti-discrimination laws, a landlord can feel free to discriminate.

        But you know that, right? This seems an odd thing to have to explain.

        I’d love it if marriages were all civil unions! That I totally agree with!! :)

        But until then, GLBT need the government to step in so that GLBT can exercise their right to marry.

        Personally, I don’t quite get why people find marriage papers to be so important, since I think the entire idea of marriage is rather silly, but that’s the current culture so I’m supportive of those who want it.

  • Jonathan Fields

    She’s kinda hot, so let’s forgive her.

    /Joking.

  • http://www.facebook.com/careersociopath Jean-Luc Turbo

    She has no gay friends, clearly…

  • Toolonggone

    >”自民・無所属・維新クラブ”

    I’m confused. She seems to have multiple affiliations.

  • Christina Tsuchida

    Let me give my own background before commenting: in 1975, I met a fellow student in divinity schl. who said out of the blue that he is “gay.” I was so embarrassed for him making this confession that I tried to go out an a limb to comfort him, and said “maybe I am gay”. More than 40 years later (10 in US, 30 here in Japan), I still get hints of rejecting remarks and touches. I want to write a novel, pace Natsume Soseki, called “I am THE cat”!! I would not have voiced that self-doubt had I not been confident that searching my heart would reveal me as straight. In USA, few were concerned enough to bother with such a search. Many merely rejected with pre-judgement. Some arranged for me to sublet a room from a gay man, who announced at the engagement party for my future husband and me, that “she is not living with a man.” [Future husband did not hear.]
    After marriage and childbirth, we came to Japan. Lately, in my sixties, I am reconciled to my own feelings a bit more, thanks to esp. Japanese humour! Someone pointed out in the West that nothing is more serious and grim-faced than lust. Japan does not so much philosophise as help us laugh at ourselves by proposing we laugh at this or that on the stage.
    That said, I think Yumi KOBAYASHI has a point that is no more hateful than the idea of registering gay or lesbian marriages. It is merely a different way of coping with the issues.
    After all, registration means vulnerability to unpleasant surprises. Were not Japanese residents of the USA found out and carried off to concentration camps during WWII? What is to prevent a real hater of homosexuals from using the wedding lists for a similar pogrom?

    • R0ninX3ph

      1) What the heck did I just read?

      2) What on earth do her statements about homosexuality being a “choice” have to do with the interment of Japanese-Americans during world war 2?

      • Christina Tsuchida

        Stranger than fiction it was, but I cannot claim much experience of friendship with homosexuals to boast about (one female housemate latter took a wife, but I failed to keep up well on the friendship).
        I do think that registering gay and lesbian weddings leaves the door open to future discrimination based on precisely those precise records. I went to a conference at divinity school on religion and homosexuality and wrote my name and address on a paper that was circulated to all the females who attended and wrote their names and addresses. Despite its lack of a title, this circulation seemed to lead me into more discrimination based on false rumour. That is why I fear for real lesbians and gays getting registered.
        Anyway, what if the lawmaker Kobayashi thinks “there is no accounting for tastes”? This originally Latin judgement would appear to affirm homosexuals’ freedom by saying it is merely a matter of taste (de gustibus non disputandem est.).
        Her issue is the budget and the bother. Perhaps she does not think people need marriage registration to get blood tests for STDs (my former landlord died of HIV ten years after he relinquished the apartment to us). Maybe in today’s Japan, the powers that be need no formal license-request to impose blood tests, I do not know. Heterosexual extramarital sex is a similar issue in this angle. It appears to be more and more common, or at least open. The original reason for the government involvement in the registering of marriages was STDs, which have been around a long long time. Otherwise, the matter could be left to religions and personally devised ceremonies.
        Ooops, forgot about children: their welfare the state must be concerned with; homosexuals and hetero-s alike can adopt only if the state sees that as ok. Is this something for Tokyo to bother to budget? Japan has lots of children needing loving homes. We have one child and so were rejected when we asked for an adopted one. Will Tokyo reject also same-sex couples requests? If lawmakers do not bother to set standards, will paternalistic bureaucrats do what is really best for the many children driven from their homes to overcrowded and understaffed institutions?

      • blondein_tokyo

        Yeah…that is one super-duper word salad. Her follow up post is no better. I tried, and then gave up.

      • blondein_tokyo

        Yeah…that is one super-duper word salad. Her follow up post is no better. I tried, and then gave up.

  • Lemming

    This could have been titled “Tokyo lawmaker demonstrates why discrimantion laws should exist”

  • Charlie Sommers

    For any human to think that another human could awaken one morning and say, “I have finally made a decision, I shall be sexually attracted to those of my own sex so that I might have a life of battling discrimination and abuse” is incomprehensible to me. People are born either straight or gay just like they are born either blonde or brunette. I have a gay son and I was pretty sure he was gay when he was about six years old. I have spent my life since then trying to insure his happiness. Tokyo, you need to be more careful of the people you elect to public office.

  • king and slave

    She’s right.

    • R0ninX3ph

      Didn’t take long for the net-uyoku to turn up and support someone claiming sexuality is a choice.

      Tell me: When did you decide to be straight?

      • king and slave

        Hahaaaa. What a tired, worn-out question! I chose to be straight when I chose to have sex with a woman, silly! :)

      • R0ninX3ph

        You realise that having sex, and sexuality are not the same thing right?

        Sexuality is about attraction. It is possible to physically have sexual intercourse with a specific gender, but not actually be attracted to that gender.

        I mean, of course you know that, and of course you knew what the question actually means, but conservatives do love to deflect when their views are challenged.

      • king and slave

        Yeah, I realize that. I also realize that just because someone has a proclivity doesn’t mean he must or should be encouraged to act upon said proclivity. I might have a proclivity to losing my temper, but that doesn’t mean I should indulge it.

      • R0ninX3ph

        Right, so you admit that sexuality isn’t a choice.

        Having sex is a choice.

        Thanks.

      • Lemming

        The two are not analogous. Having a temper means you might hurt other people.

        Having an attraction to someone of the same-sex literally doesn’t affect you in any way. The only effect is that people who are attracted to the same-sex are happier.

        Whats your objection in the first place? Because if you say it’s religious, I’m done talking, you can’t be reasoned with.

      • king and slave

        It affects the state of your soul, since sex is permissible only within marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. What homosexuals call marriage is not marriage. Thus, homosexual sex is prohibited.

      • Lemming

        So you’re a crazy religious nut. Gotcha.

      • king and slave

        You disagree, so you ad hominem. Gotcha.

      • Lemming

        Yeah, I don’t have much interest in you preaching. It’s not really a conversation at that point. So ad hominem it is!

      • Lemming

        Yeah, I don’t have much interest in you preaching. It’s not really a conversation at that point. So ad hominem it is!

      • Lemming

        So you’re a crazy religious nut. Gotcha.

      • Lemming

        So you’re a crazy religious nut. Gotcha.

      • R0ninX3ph

        “It affects the state of your soul, since sex is permissible only within marriage. ”

        Sex is only permissible within marriage?

        Well…. I guess I’m going to hell then anyway, I might as well stand up for people who are also condemned to hell because of an Old White Man in the sky.

      • king and slave

        God isn’t white, and He’s (It’s) not in the sky.

        You’re still on this side of death’s veil, so your eternal destination is still open for you to choose.

      • R0ninX3ph

        Yeah…. He’s white. Haven’t you seen the pictures of Jesus? He’s pretty white bro. If God is the father of Jesus, you ain’t gonna get someone that white out of a non-white parent man. Lern2Genetics bro.

        I’m perfectly fine with my “eternal destination” being decaying in the ground with no afterlife to speak of.

        You do you buddy, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but it isn’t your job to change my mind.

        Besides, no amount of internet trollery by you is going to make me see the “light of God” or whatever you want to call it.

        I’m too rational to believe in an omnipotent being that created the universe 6,000 years ago.

      • king and slave

        You engaged me, bro, not I you. Remember that. You talked to me first. Don’t wanna hear what people you disagree with have to say? Then don’t start talking to them!

      • R0ninX3ph

        Fair point, I didn’t say I didn’t want to discuss it, but you’re the one bringing up religion in a discussion about biology and the human experience.

        No human is born believing in God, some are born gay.

      • king and slave

        Religion is part of my (and billions of others) human experience. It is valid.

      • R0ninX3ph

        Your opinion about religion might make sense if those beliefs were all unanimous within those billions of others you refer to, but they aren’t. Belief systems not based in evidence based on fact, are, in my opinion, not valid. Belief based on a book written thousands of years ago, are no more valid than believing in the flying spaghetti monster now.

        That is my opinion, your move.

      • king and slave

        Meh. Demographics is destiny.

      • king and slave

        You engaged me, bro, not I you. Remember that. You talked to me first. Don’t wanna hear what people you disagree with have to say? Then don’t start talking to them!

      • blondein_tokyo

        Whose god? Yours? Why is your god the correct one?
        I think MY god is THE god. He even has a Facebook page. You should check it out. After all, Pascal’s wager and all that.

      • blondein_tokyo

        That’s right. Gay people should never, ever, fall in love or have sex, because that would be…what, icky to you?
        I guess that is your point, that gay people should actively choose not to have relationships so that you don’t have to feel icky about it. That’s not a violation of human rights, or anything of that sort, huh? It’s a perfectly reasonble request!

      • Buck

        I see…so when two men have sex its not gay…

      • R0ninX3ph

        Wut? Someone’s sexuality is not dependent on where they stick, or what they have stuck in, their genitalia.

        Sexuality is who you are attracted to, someone can be sexually attracted to the opposite gender, but still physically have sex with someone of the same gender.

        Simply physically having sex with someone of the same gender doesn’t make you gay, just as physically having sex with someone of the opposite gender doesn’t make you straight. Evidenced by many gay men over many decades marrying, having children with women, despite being sexually attracted to men.

      • Buck

        I accept a person could force themselves to have gay sex and not be gay, a gay person could force themselves to have heterosexual sex and not be straight. However, homosexual behavior is still a choice. Fundamentally, all non-reflexive behavior
        is essentially a choice. Sexual attraction is either a byproduct of biology or environment or both. Behaviors, however, are chosen. You could be a pedophile and never act on it. You can be gay and never act on it. But, being black, Asian
        or some other race for example is not like being gay or being straight, in the sense that one cannot choose not to be black, or not be Asian, while one chooses one’s own sexual behavior. Thus, the lawmaker is wrong that being gay is matter of ‘personal taste`, but homosexual behavior, or acting gay, if you will, is personal taste.

      • R0ninX3ph

        You’re missing the point though, she isn’t making the statement that people are choosing to have homosexual sex, she is making the statement that homosexuality itself is a choice, it is not.

        Either way, Government should be out of the bedroom, what I do in my bedroom, what you do in your bedroom, is nobody’s business but yours (as long as what is being done is legal). It isn’t my business what you do sexually, it isn’t your business what I do, it isn’t the Government’s business.

        So yes, as you said “homosexual behaviour” acting on your sexuality, is a choice some people make, as much as it is a choice for people to engage in “heterosexual behaviour”. But, if it isn’t hurting anyone, if it isn’t against the law, I want the Government keeping their nose out of my business.

      • Lemming

        So you’re saying people should be sexually repressed?

        I find it hard to figure out your angle. I don’t get it. What’s your objection to a man being attracted to another man and acting out on that attraction?

        I mean, if you want, we can apply what you say to straight people and then call men having sexual relations with women ‘personal taste’. Why should the government recognize or support marriage either, then? Why should the government support or not support anything that’s ‘personal taste’?

        Are you saying that people who are gay should feel attraction yet not act on it for some reason?

      • Buck

        I never made an objection to a man being attracted to another man. I never said anything about the government. I never said people who are gay should not act on it. I am making the point that homosexual behavior is a choice, and I assume the lawmaker also feels that way. I agree she is ignorant of some of the facts, but I get the sense she would agree with me and isn’t able to understand the sublet distinction. I am also curious what she said and Japanese and how it was translated. Was the speech in English? I doubt it, though I could be wrong.

      • Buck

        I never made an objection to a man being attracted to another man. I never said anything about the government. I never said people who are gay should not act on it. I am making the point that homosexual behavior is a choice, and I assume the lawmaker also feels that way. I agree she is ignorant of some of the facts, but I get the sense she would agree with me and isn’t able to understand the sublet distinction. I am also curious what she said and Japanese and how it was translated. Was the speech in English? I doubt it, though I could be wrong.

      • Buck

        Honestly, I want to know more about what the “support by municipal governments” is. I don’t think being gay is reason enough for the government to provide you with support. I mean, I don’t know what type of support, so I need to know more information. There was some mention about government support for disabled people in the article, so I assume she was arguing against equating gay people with disabled people.

      • king and slave

        Only if it’s straight-on-straight gay action. That keeps families together. Cf. Nathan Barley. :)

      • NickDavisGB

        Bring back the Lions.

      • blondein_tokyo

        Oh, I see. If it is a choice, then it must also be possible for you to choose to have sex wtih a man, then, yes? Can you actively choose that? I’d like to see you do that. I bet anything that you cannot, and so your “theory” is nothing but hot air. :)
        But hey, I’m open to you proving me wrong. Be sure to take pics, since I love me some gay porn. :)

  • Akuma

    Who cares about any of this. All I see is another group of people jumping on a chance to be offended.

    • blondein_tokyo

      I see. So when people tell me I’m going to hell, that I’m not worthy of marriage, that I am bad and wrong and perverted, that’s not REALLY offensive, it’s just me being overly sensitive.

      Umm…okaaaaaaaaaaay.

  • Gokki

    Isn´t she part of the christian asociation ?.. :/..

  • Buck

    Two men having sex doesn`t mean they are gay, right? They can choose to have sex with other men but their sexuality could still be heterosexual, right?!? I mean, nearly everyone here claims human sexuality isn`t a choice and that who you have sex with is a choice but not your sexuality. Correct?

    • blondein_tokyo

      Yeah, that was my point to you earlier. Also, bisexuality exists, as does aesexuality.

  • Buck

    Well…hmmm…..homosexual behavior is still a choice. Fundamentally, all non-reflexive behavior is essentially a choice. Sexual attraction is either a byproduct of biology or environment or both. Behaviors, however, are chosen. You could be a pedophile and never act on it. You can be gay and never act on it. But, being black, Asian or some other race for example is not like being gay or being straight, in the sense that one cannot choose not to be black, or not be Asian, while one chooses one’s own sexual behavior. Thus, the lawmaker is wrong that being gay is matter of ‘personal taste`, but homosexual behavior, or acting gay, if you will, is still personal taste.

    • Lemming

      Let me ask you what you think ‘homosexual behavior’ and ‘acting gay’ means. I need some clarification.

      • Buck

        Its the same thing, not sure why I included “acting gay”.

      • Louis

        Like Lemming, I’m interested. What do you mean ‘acting gay’? Acting as if you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

      • R0ninX3ph

        Buck, as below, has made it clear he doesn’t agree with homosexuality, so I am sure whatever it is, is grounded in conservative or religious basis.

      • Buck

        R0ninX3ph, please refrain from lying and smearing. I never said I don’t agree with homosexuality, I said gay people should be free to engage in homosexual behavior. I also never brought religious arguments into this. Why must you lie and insinuate?

    • Francois

      Hi Buck, why put pedophile and homosexual in the same sentence? Is there any connection between the 2?

      • Buck

        Well, it wasn`t “in the same sentence”, not that is matters. There isn`t a ”connection” per se, see below to read the entire argument fully developed.

    • blondein_tokyo

      If you take her literally, then yes. But it matters what her INTENTION is here. It seems to me the nuance is, she believes that if people choose to act on their homosexuality, then they have actively chosen to be outside of society, in which case the government has no responsibility and doesn’t need to enact any laws to protect GLBT, or give them rights, e.g., marriage. That is why she is being attacked here, because we can see her intent is hostile.

  • R0ninX3ph

    A child is not an adult making an informed decision, it is rightfully illegal, thus acting on that is not legal.

    Homosexuality is not illegal, neither are homosexual acts. Thus, your argument is vacuous.

    Telling one group of people they are not allowed to act on their impulses, but telling another group their impulses are normal, good and fine to act on (when the actions being performed in any case is LEGAL) is the definition of discrimination.

    • Buck

      Sorry about the double post, I didn’t see the first one for quit some time so I decided to rewrite it.

      You are making far too many assumptions about my opinion and you also do not understand my argument.

      First, I never said anything about the government, although I understand why you brought it up given the context of the article.

      Second, I don’t think you understand my point about being a pedophile. Let me clarify, of course I understand one act is between consenting adults and is legal (as it should be) and the other is not and is illegal (as it should be). However, I never said anything about legally, so why did you do there? My point is vacuous, you simply don’t understand. Do you concede one can be a pedophile and never sexually touch a child or even look at sexual material. I mean, people can be born pedophiles. People can also be born gay and never engage in homosexual acts. Ultimately, my point is that being born gay doesn’t matter.
      In a twisted way, I think this law maker understands that but isn’t able to articulate it. When people being gay is choice, what they really mean, or what I guess I assume they mean, is that homosexual behavior is a choice. Maybe I am defending someone who doesn’t deserve it, she does seem ignorant in other areas.

      “Why should a portion of the population deny their sexuality because they
      aren’t considered “normal” by those who are considered “normal”?”

      People deny their sexuality all the time, its normal to deny your sexuality. There are so many examples its hard to know where to start. Men may want to have sex with multiple partners, but deny their sexuality to maintain a stable relationship with their wife (or vice versa). Its currently considered “normal” to maintain a monogamous relationship so a large portion of the population deny their sexuality. Another example, its currently not “normal” to have sex in public, but many people deny their sexuality and have sex in a tasty club toilets instead of out in the nice lounge area. There are so many more examples…Anyway, my point is the opposite to yours, people deny their sexuality all the time. Let me be clear, I don’t think gay people should not engage in homosexual behavior. But as I already argued, its (homosexual behavior) a choice nonetheless, just like so much of what human sexuality is.

      • R0ninX3ph

        I don’t agree with you, males not sleeping with multiple partners is not the same as homosexuality.

        A man restraining his want to sleep with multiple women is not the same as someone restraining their attraction to a specific person.

        Why do you think homosexuals shouldnt engage in homosexual behavour? If your answer is grounded in religion, please don’t bring that rubbish here.

      • Buck

        R0ninX3ph, stop lying and misrepresenting my view. I clearly stated multiple times that gay people should be free to engage in homosexual behavior (with other consenting adults). Why do you assume some religious aspect? I am an atheist! But even if I was religious, why must you use it has a smear? Especially when the other person never raised the subject?

        Finally you clearly state where you disagree. I think homosexuality is an aspect of human sexuality just like other aspect of sex drive are. You think homosexual attraction is something different then other types of sexual attraction. I think a man restraining and denying his natural biological sexual attraction to multiple women is comparable to a man or women denying their homosexual behavior. Same as if a pedophile denies his or her sexual attraction to children. Gay people are not consumed with an uncontrollable desire. Humans are all responsible for their own behavior.

      • R0ninX3ph

        Sure, homosexuals can restrain themselves just as anyone else can, that isn’t my point.

        My point is, and what I interpreted from what you were saying, is that homosexuals are the ones that should repress their urges when heterosexuals do not need to.

        If that is not your implication, then I apologise, but that is how I interpreted it. As it is definitely what is implied in claiming it is a choice. Yes, it is a choice to have sex, just like it is a choice for heterosexuals to have sex, some people want to take that choice away from people who are not heterosexual.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • R0ninX3ph

        She specifically refers to the cities and wards that are awarding certificates to same-sex couples recognising their relationship whilst also referring to the clause in the constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

        Given she also stands on platforms like reduction of Governmental spending, it is quite obvious she means that those municipalities are wasting money by issuing those certificates, and that those “issues” the certificates are designed to deal with: visiting their partner in hospital, renting housing, can be “dealt with independently” aka “by other people and not by wasting money and time by issuing those certificates”.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

      • Buck

        Nobody is claiming gay people should repress urges.
        The lawmaker didn`t say that either. I think what she means and what most
        people mean when they say things like she did, is that homosexual behavior is a
        choice. Personal taste is an odd way to put it, but it basically implies the
        same thing, or maybe I give her too much credit (I assume she gave her speech
        in Japanese, so I would like to hear the original). At issue here, and what I
        am actually interested in, is the municipal support she is arguing people who engage
        in homosexual behavior should not get. The article did not make that very
        clear.

    • Buck

      Sorry about the double post, I didn’t see the first one for quit some time so I decided to rewrite it.

      You are making far too many assumptions about my opinion and you also do not understand my argument.

      First, I never said anything about the government, although I understand why you brought it up given the context of the article.

      Second, I don’t think you understand my point about being a pedophile. Let me clarify, of course I understand one act is between consenting adults and is legal (as it should be) and the other is not and is illegal (as it should be). However, I never said anything about legally, so why did you do there? My point is vacuous, you simply don’t understand. Do you concede one can be a pedophile and never sexually touch a child or even look at sexual material. I mean, people can be born pedophiles. People can also be born gay and never engage in homosexual acts. Ultimately, my point is that being born gay doesn’t matter.
      In a twisted way, I think this law maker understands that but isn’t able to articulate it. When people being gay is choice, what they really mean, or what I guess I assume they mean, is that homosexual behavior is a choice. Maybe I am defending someone who doesn’t deserve it, she does seem ignorant in other areas.

      “Why should a portion of the population deny their sexuality because they
      aren’t considered “normal” by those who are considered “normal”?”

      People deny their sexuality all the time, its normal to deny your sexuality. There are so many examples its hard to know where to start. Men may want to have sex with multiple partners, but deny their sexuality to maintain a stable relationship with their wife (or vice versa). Its currently considered “normal” to maintain a monogamous relationship so a large portion of the population deny their sexuality. Another example, its currently not “normal” to have sex in public, but many people deny their sexuality and have sex in a tasty club toilets instead of out in the nice lounge area. There are so many more examples…Anyway, my point is the opposite to yours, people deny their sexuality all the time. Let me be clear, I don’t think gay people should not engage in homosexual behavior. But as I already argued, its (homosexual behavior) a choice nonetheless, just like so much of what human sexuality is.

    • Buck

      Sorry about the double post, I didn’t see the first one for quit some time so I decided to rewrite it.

      You are making far too many assumptions about my opinion and you also do not understand my argument.

      First, I never said anything about the government, although I understand why you brought it up given the context of the article.

      Second, I don’t think you understand my point about being a pedophile. Let me clarify, of course I understand one act is between consenting adults and is legal (as it should be) and the other is not and is illegal (as it should be). However, I never said anything about legally, so why did you do there? My point is vacuous, you simply don’t understand. Do you concede one can be a pedophile and never sexually touch a child or even look at sexual material. I mean, people can be born pedophiles. People can also be born gay and never engage in homosexual acts. Ultimately, my point is that being born gay doesn’t matter.
      In a twisted way, I think this law maker understands that but isn’t able to articulate it. When people being gay is choice, what they really mean, or what I guess I assume they mean, is that homosexual behavior is a choice. Maybe I am defending someone who doesn’t deserve it, she does seem ignorant in other areas.

      “Why should a portion of the population deny their sexuality because they
      aren’t considered “normal” by those who are considered “normal”?”

      People deny their sexuality all the time, its normal to deny your sexuality. There are so many examples its hard to know where to start. Men may want to have sex with multiple partners, but deny their sexuality to maintain a stable relationship with their wife (or vice versa). Its currently considered “normal” to maintain a monogamous relationship so a large portion of the population deny their sexuality. Another example, its currently not “normal” to have sex in public, but many people deny their sexuality and have sex in a tasty club toilets instead of out in the nice lounge area. There are so many more examples…Anyway, my point is the opposite to yours, people deny their sexuality all the time. Let me be clear, I don’t think gay people should not engage in homosexual behavior. But as I already argued, its (homosexual behavior) a choice nonetheless, just like so much of what human sexuality is.

  • Jamie Bakeridge

    Seems quite a mild considered view compared to many U.S. Politicians and the Vatican!!

  • rextrek1

    well hon, the next time Godzilla, earthquake, or Tidalwave strike your country – don’t go asking us for $$$$$$$

  • NORMAN DOSTAL

    funny how shes from a culture how think women are subordinate yet she dares criticize another minority-on your knees submissive cow!!!!

  • blondein_tokyo

    Well, the definition of pedophila is an *attraction* to pre-pubescent children. Whether they act on it or not, they are still a pedophile.
    But there are people who enjoy sexual contact just for the sake of pleasure. They aren’t actually attracted to the same sex; they only do it for fun, kinda like how dogs will go for it no matter what the other species is, cat, teddy bear, human leg…etc. LOL
    I know people like this, esp in swing community. This includes guys & girls, though admittedly, girls are more open to it than guys. Females tend to be less hindered by societal percecptions, so they don’t feel as anxious about being PERCIEVED as gay.
    Guys don’t want to be seen as gay because they are afraid it will hurt their macho image, so they tend to be quiet about their same-sex sexcapades.

    • Buck

      Glad you agree on my point. However, how can you people enjoy sexual contract but “not actually be attracted to the same sex” but then do it for fun. This is an attraction. Agian, there is nothing wrong with that, as I stated many times. I can only see it as not an attraction if you forced yourself to prove a point or bet or something. However, in 99.9% of the time its an attraction.

      • blondein_tokyo

        Well, to be crude, “an orgasm is an orgasm”. My personal pet word for these people is “trisexual” – they will try anything sexual. :)
        Or another word is “heteroflexible”. That is, they are flexible in who they will “play” with.
        I don’t know how you can arbitrarily come up with 99.9%. I think there are more of these people out there than you understand. Since this is not in your personal realm of experience, I can understand your skepticisim; but as it is not outside my realm of experience, I can also assure you that it is quite a real thing and not that uncommon. :)
        You might want to look up the “Klien Grid”, by the way. It is more accurate than the Kinsey Scale and covers far more possibilites. Sexuality is defintely not black and white, as I think you have already noted. :)

      • Buck

        I meant, in 99.9% of the time people don`t engage in homosexual behavior to prove a point.