Tuesday, November 19, 2013

An inimical look at gay rights.

In response to the post titled Stay out of this! by Dreams for the American People, the argument is stated on how gay rights should be available to every same sex couple. As implied by the separation of church and state, the US government or states should not have a say of whether two people of the same sex can’t or can be married. Also argued, is that all of the states should adapt to gay rights as legal forms of marriage.

One of the arguments that’s against gay rights, I find, that is hardly ever is spoken of is the basic function of society survival. Instead, a lot of anti gay rights arguments evolve around religious perspectives. Russia is an example of a country that has passed laws against gay rights. In promoting the conservative government body, Russia has put forth that it is illegal to distribute publications or propaganda promoting homosexual activity. Also in the law is the power to impose taxes among those who end up marrying in a non-traditional way and divorcing, even in a traditional marriage.

Yelena Mizulina, who is a member of Russia’s parliament, has said this is necessary for the Russian people because of a sharp decline in demographics have been occurring since the end of the cold war. Battling this concern with declining birthrates, Russia has put in effect this law to ensure Russia prosperity into the future. To the extent, Russia portrays the US as a dissipated western superpower in inflicting a moral decline on the people of Russia.


Even though the US survival is not on the minds of the majority of people, I think it still plays an important part in continuing the US prominence in the world. While not mentioning any religious points of why gay rights could harm us, I think population growth is a reason why some in the US are reluctant to move a head with gay rights. A country is great because of its people and population. In making sure the survival of the country depended on the legitimacy of why the constitution was written, I think that the framers would see this as a threat to the documents they drafted more then 200 years ago.

No comments: