As years go by more people are starting to realize that gay rights really is not a big deal and should be available to every same sex couple. More citizens are becoming aware that gay marriage should be at the couple's discretion. Marriage should be about two people who are in love wanting to combine their lives in every way. It should not matter if it is two men, two women, or one of each. If someone loves another person, gender or race should not be a contributing factor to the all famous question "is it the right thing to do?". National government tends to bud in and justify why they think gay marriage is not constitutional. However, in my personal opinion, that is just disrespectful. Gay or not gay, the two people are in love... what makes them so different? Who is to say they are not in love just as much as the straight couple. Gay rights should be legal in all states, and not just in select states that the government thinks is appropriate. How would you like it if you had found your soul mate and was told no you can not get married because you are the same sex. It just does not make sense. The government in the US states that we have the separation of church and state. How can the state make decisions based on old church standards? Personally, the government should stay out of this argument, and allow people who have 'free rights' be able to make life decisions on their own. These people should not be looked down upon because of their sexual orientation, they are just like straight couples.
As a free country we should allow everyone to have equal rights, no matter race, or gender. If the government keeps choosing who they grant equal rights too, they might as well declare this country as free, but free to a user's discretion.
1 comment:
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.
Post a Comment