Russia...Politics...Beliefs.

[z929669]

... 'love' is one way to look at the attraction, but I would argue that 'lust' is where it all begins. Lust for members of a gender will possibly lead to 'love' with a member of that gender eventually, but it is unlikely that we will fall in romantic love with a member of a gender for which we do not lust.

 

I think evidence supports that nature is by far more in control of what we lust after than nurture (my subjective interpretation of the 'facts'), but nature is very complex and is also subject to environment (to some extent, even at the heritable genetic level). It is factually false that a person can be compelled into becoming homosexual due to propaganda, even children. I'll admit that children (and weak-minded adults) may (in very rare cases) find themselves potentially doing homosexuality in order to identify with a group, but I contest that they will actually become homosexual.

 

Let's strip all of this intellectual argumentative banter to its core generalization: Socially conservative-minded people tend to be less tolerant relative to more socially liberal-minded people, and this probably stems from relatively more "insecurity of self" and "fear of other" of the more conservative group. At the same time (and for similar reasons) certain socially-liberal groups can be tiresome as well if they constantly pile on their world views ad nauseum.

 

Russia is obviously dominated by the "fearful & insecure" and has some serious evolution to go through in order to catch up to other societies. Same can be said of many other countries. This is likely due to historic governments' implementation of social policy ... ?

 

Democracies promote rights of the individual (to the extent that greed takes over society) and social evolution (except where it threatens the interests of capital) ... and now the USA has Citizens United, so that our delicate corporations can be treated as individuals, too  .

... and Russia's democracy is still young and much more infused with theocratic 'ideals' than most Western cultures (Central/South Americas being notable exceptions).

 

Anyway, some things are 'fact' and other things are opinion, and I'll bet it is a 'fact' that Russia has more homosexuality-related casualties than Western countries ... all because likely more of them (including those in government) have a general irrational fear of homosexuality largely driven by shame and religion ... and it is my 'opinion' that this is a rather silly state of affairs (wherever it exists) with no logical justification :P

[elenhil]

The main difference between your examples and homosexiality is, that in your examples there is either someone coming to grave physical harm, there is a justice system that is considered unjust for very rational reasons, or an obivious uncalled for gender specific power shift.

It is rather obvious that an analogy, by it very nature, deals with two essentially separate (and therefore different) objects. Isn't it a spectacular failure of logic that someone would focus on the difference between the objects in question, while ignoring the very purpose of the analogy - that is, similarity of relationship?

 

I might have illustrated this particular point by giving the classic hand:palm sole:foot example, but I really fear I will get "The main difference between a hand and a homosexual is..." as a reply :(

 

The point of my analogies (that homosexuality is as inherently incompatible with traditional morals the above-mentioned phenomena are, respectively) seems entirely lost on you. 

 

Still, even if your attempt at underlining the difference between homosexuality and everything else I mentioned is entirely misguided, you are nevertheless making a number of incorrect assumptions I might want to point out. 

 

Engaging in a homosexual relation on the other hand is a mutual agreement between adult people where noone comes to harm. 

Might have been true, had cohabitation been an entirely private affair that no-one outside the bedroom knew of or cared about. However, in a society, the matter of any two individuals' marital (or quasi-marital) relationships is far from private. As evidenced by the very existence of family legislation from antiquity to modernity. Like it or not, every state thinks it its business to define how a family should look like. The reasons for it being explicitly stated in UDHR Article 16(3) - because it is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It stands to reason that something fundamental to a society cannot be outside its jurisdiction. A matter of existential survival, frankly.

 

So, a society might well decide that a particular form of relationships directly related to the matter of the family is not conducive to the well-being of this its fundamental unit. And (as has been shown above) will be entirely within its right to protect it (including though necessary and justified limitations on personal freedoms). It just so happens that the Russian society think this is the case, and homosexual 'families' are undermining families proper. And not without reason, I believe.

 

Smoking is also a completely different case because it causes measurable health problems, and quite severe ones.

So is being homosexually active. 200%+ increase in HIV infections is quite a severe health problem, in my book.

 

With the same line of thinking, you could cut argue for apartheit, construct some moral tradition to defend (e.g. the sons of Ham should serve, skin colors shouldn't mix), and then say we should ban 'propaganda' (like there is no harm if people of different skin colors mix) for equal rights because it threatenes those values. This is called discrimination and luckily the politically centric people try to fight it.

It is hardly in my power to 'construct' a moral tradition; are you implying that I have just made it up and, in fact, in Russia none exists?

 

Still, I really like your analogy because it, in fact, serves to illustrate a rather different point. Do bear with me:

 

The thing is, if you strip this subject of morality (as some of my interlocutors seem to think is only proper and 'objective'), Apartheid was perfectly legal. In fact, if there are no laws of morality transcending national jurisdictions, any law, however discriminatory, is legal, including those of the historical Union of South Africa. Because each state is sovereign. South Africa was not a democracy, therefore, in a morality-free discourse, its white minority had every legal right to assert its will over the black majority - by virtue of having passed Apartheid laws.

 

The thing is, way back in the 20^th century some people decided that, because there are laws of morality transcending national jurisdictions, said nations could, theoretically, legally acknowledge some of these laws, therefore binding themselves with a common transnational framework of law. Re-read the Preamble to the UNHDR and see that a common moral background was the very raison d'etre for its existence. Because, just like with any other seminal legal document (up to and, probably, beyond the US Declaration of Independence), its authors were positive they were not inventing something new, but rather explicating a pre-existing legal and moral reality.

 

Anyway, having signed the Declaration, the States parties recognized that, to be properly legal, their domestic laws must comply with the Declaration and the subsequent international legal documents. Technically, unjustified discrimination became illegal because these states expressly prohibited it. 'Constructing some moral tradition and then saying we should ban 'propaganda' for equal rights' became illegal because these states expressly upheld equal rights (the exercise of which, of course, is subject to limitation as per Article 29(3) of the said Declaration). 

 

The thing is, the Union of South Africa did not. It was not a signatory to UDHR. It was not legally bound by its norms. Therefore technically (that is, as if morals did not exist or have any relevance to this matter) any conflict between its domestic legislation and UDHR provisions did not make it illegal.

 

So, to answer your implicit question 'does my logic make Apartheid legal, too?', one must either bring morality back into equation - or be forced to acknowledge that, technically, it does. Luckily, I do not have to be forced into the second option and readily admit that Apartheid was illegal by virtue of its laws being contrary to natural law (that's God's law for the onthologically inclined), transcending national jurisdictions and ultimately 'powering' the UDHR and the likes of it.

 

And thanks for not falling asleep at the keyboard, by the way.

Edited December 14, 2015 by elenhil

[z929669]

@elenhil
I am no legal pundit or rhetorician, but ...
There is no justification in UDHR 16(3) for state-driven mandate that it (morally) protect the family unit. It is pretty obvious that the intent of this Article is to recognize that the family unit be treated with rights attributable to the individual. It is a major subjective stretch to interpret these words to encompass the moral authority of the state to impose its own (i.e., your own) subjective over-interpretation of these words to include that the state may legitimately hold jurisdiction over the mechanics of the family ... or that it is any way related to existential survival. I emphatically disagree that any misguided human law attempting to limit the composition of the family unit could have any lasting impact on human reproduction or survivability (Family Research Council, anyone?)
 
Similarly, Russian law --if citing Article 16-- is also subjectively over/mis interpreting this Article. Where is the evidence that homosexual families are undermining traditional families? ... and it is entirely reasonable (IMO) to accept homosexual families as legitimate families (without quotes, TYVM) having all of the analogous benefits of the traditional family.
 
This Article actually goes through some purposeful effort (IMO) to avoid any reference to gender or class with regard to the people engaged in marriage. It allows for homosexual marriage as well as polygamous marriage.
 

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

The family is entitled to 'protection' (by the State) from entities that would break up the family or otherwise compromise the integrity of an existing family unit ... not the State's subjective opinion of the composition of the  prospective family unit.

 

No, Russian lawmakers would no doubt suffer a loss in a rational debate on their interpretation, if your assumptions/facts are correct.

[elenhil]

 

Policy dictating changes to rights/ethics that are covered within a constitution would require amendment of that constitution, which requires near unanimous public and political support (for good reason). 

Does it, indeed? I wouldn't call two-thirds majority 'a near unanimous public and political support', for example. That's the requirement for amending the US Constitution (with state constitutions, if I'm not mistake, sometimes requiring a simple majority). I bet less than one third of Russians are homosexuals. By your logic, whatever the amendment, they will just have to suck it up, and that will be OK.

 

That is, of course, if a) there is any change to speak of, and b) that said change does by its nature necessitate a constitutional amendment.

 

Incidentally, in case of the ban on homosexual propaganda among minors, neither is, I believe, true.

 

So lawfully imposing a subjective moral position of any individual/group on all other individuals/groups should be unconstitutional without unanimous support by amending the constitution itself.

 

So, to pick up where I left a couple of lines above: I was under the impression (for real, not as a rhetorical device) that for something to require amending the constitution it must explicitly clash with something already in it. Like really denying someone his rights and freedoms. Bringing back slavery, for example. Had the US Constitution not tacitly allowed slavery, Lincoln would not have to make his vision a constitutional amendment. So, instead of the 13th Amendment, you would have had something like the Northwest Ordinance.

 

By the same token, the only way the Russian law would have required a constitutional amendment (and a two-thirds majority) is if the Constitution of the Russian Federation provided for the right to conduct said propaganda in the first place. Otherwise lower level legislation would suffice. A regional law, for example - as, in fact, was the case.

 

Sexuality is a moral/ethical right, and I would guess that it is unconstitutional to prevent a certain group from thinking and saying (and in many cases, doing) what they want/believe 

Not sure about sexuality being a right... There is a right for men and women of age to marry and form a family, which is a rather different beast. But whatever the right, I did explain that in can only be exercised when not threatening the pubic health, public morals, and public safety human rights documents keep talking about.

[Nebulous112]

So, to answer your implicit question 'does my logic make Apartheid legal, too?', one must either bring morality back into equation - or be forced to acknowledge that, technically, it does. Luckily, I do not have to be forced into the second option and readily admit that Apartheid was illegal by virtue of its laws being contrary to natural law (that's God's law for the onthologically inclined), transcending national jurisdictions and ultimately 'powering' the UDHR and the likes of it.

If Apartheid was illegal by virtue of being against "natural law" (whatever that is, see the section in my earlier post regarding morality and law), then how is Russia's state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals not? By virtue of the degree of discrimination?

 

Where is the line drawn, between acceptable negative discrimination and unacceptable in "natural" law?

 

I believe you stretched a little too far in this post. Unless I misread, I believe your statement regarding apartheid and natural law is a logical fallacy, and contradictory to your previous arguments regarding morality and law.

 

@Tech: I'm with you on Emma Watson. Sadly, I don't think she would consider me right for her, either. Heterosexual or not. Lol. ;-)

 

Edit: Added a quote to reference what post I was talking about. You guys type too quickly for me on my mobile. ;-)

Edited December 14, 2015 by Nebulous112

[z929669]

 

 

Does it, indeed? I wouldn't call two-thirds majority 'a near unanimous public and political support', for example. That's the requirement for amending the US Constitution (with state constitutions, if I'm not mistake, sometimes requiring a simple majority). I bet less than one third of Russians are homosexuals. By your logic, whatever the amendment, they will just have to suck it up, and that will be OK.

 

That is, of course, if a) there is any change to speak of, and b) that said change does by its nature necessitate a constitutional amendment.

 

Incidentally, in case of the ban on homosexual propaganda among minors, neither is, I believe, true.

 

So, to pick up where I left a couple of lines above: I was under the impression (for real, not as a rhetorical device) that for something to require amending the constitution it must explicitly clash with something already in it. Like really denying someone his rights and freedoms. Bringing back slavery, for example. Had the US Constitution not tacitly allowed slavery, Lincoln would not have to make his vision a constitutional amendment. So, instead of the 13th Amendment, you would have had something like the Northwest Ordinance.

 

By the same token, the only way the Russian law would have required a constitutional amendment (and a two-thirds majority) is if the Constitution of the Russian Federation provided for the right to conduct said propaganda in the first place. Otherwise lower level legislation would suffice. A regional law, for example - as, in fact, was the case.

 

Not sure about sexuality being a right... There is a right for men and women of age to marry and form a family, which is a rather different beast. But whatever the right, I did explain that in can only be exercised when not threatening the pubic health, public morals, and public safety human rights documents keep talking about.

 

Sexuality is a right. Print that on stone and never doubt the fact.

 

With 2/3 votes, amendments to the US constitution can be proposed ... then it requires 3/4 of state legislators to ratify ... this is all if there are no legal blockers, which there would almost certainly be many if it were as controversial as anything involving moral rights

 

... therefore ... essentially, unanimous support is needed to amend the US constitution, and that is why nobody has been able to change some of the most controversial existing amendments and why the US Constitution has only been modified 27 time of the 11,623 proposed (0.23%) since it was written in the 1700s. That is of only those proposed after 2/3 vote.

 

Some of us look through the clutter of semantics and banter to see the real pattern. Nice try though ;)

[elenhil]

 

I am no legal pundit or rhetorician, but ...

There is no justification in UDHR 16(3) for state-driven mandate that it 'morally' protect the family unit. It is pretty obvious that the intent of this Article is to recognize that the family unit be treated with rights attributable to the individual. It is a major subjective stretch to interpret these words to encompass the moral authority of the state to impose its own (i.e., your own) subjective over-interpretation of these words to include that the state may legitimately hold jurisdiction over the mechanics of the family or that it is any way related to existential survival.

Still, it is a stretch long taken by successive legislators both internationally and domestically (which does imply they did not see it as that much of a stretch).

 

Let's start from the bottom up. The rationale of the relevant Constitution court judgement (N 151-O-O of January 19, 2010) justified its position, among other considerations, by its protecting the family as a social institution, its values and the role it plays in the upbringing and development of children.

 

 

The laws in question are to protect the family in its traditional meaning which, according to the Constitutional Court is one of the values “securing the continuous succession of generations and enabling the preservation and development of our multinational people†that, accordingly, requires the relevant protection by the State. In the last paragraph of the same Item the Court explains that they are to prohibit deliberate attempts to make children form “perverted notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalentâ€. In other words, one of the aims of this law is to protect the family in its child care and upbringing aspect.

 

You may already see why the legislator does not see it as 'a question of the mechanics of the family', but rather as a question of preserving the very foundation of the society. You really cannot successfully argue that a person in entirely autonomous and that its sexuality does not affect other individuals or the state in general. A question of mechanics inevitably translates into a question of preservation and development of the whole society. A question of morals inevitably translates into a question of rights of others (in the words of the ECtHR, '[t]here is a natural link between protection of morals and protection of the rights of others'). Right of the child in particular - both in terms of being free from propaganda and in terms of the fulfilment of his or her right to a family (and not a cohabitation or a same-sex union).

 

The question of existential survival is to me rather obvious. Russia is officially (UN) experiencing a demographic crisis. If you think that is entirely irrelevant to existential survival, think again (does. for example, the impending collapse of the welfare society sound relevant to the existence of the nation state?) If you thing individual sexual behaviour is irrelevant to that, think again (does, for example, the documented heightened risk of HIV or STDs among MSM sound relevant to national birth rate?). And, by the way, homosexuals do not procreate all that well. So in 20 years a 30-year homosexual will be a happy little drain on the welfare budget. Need I really explain why exactly?

 

This Article actually goes through some purposeful effort (IMO) to avoid any reference to gender or class with regard to the people engaged in marriage. It allows for homosexual marriage as well as polygamous marriage.

I believe you are wrong. Writing UDHR no-one really imagined that a time will come when they will have to clarify what the family in its traditional sense actually is.

Edited December 14, 2015 by elenhil

[elenhil]

Sexuality is a right. Print that on stone and never doubt the fact.

Ed Miliband tried something like that (heard of the guy? I nearly hadn't). Didn't make it a fact, though... 

 

Seriously, Z (hope it's OK to skip the numbers part). What article of UDHR is that? Or do you have another origin or rights in mind?

 

With 2/3 votes, amendments to the US constitution can be proposed ... then it requires 3/4 of state legislators to ratify .

OK, my wrong. It's 3/4 in the US. Still, only 2/3 in Russia (and quite a number of other first world countries). I stand corrected. 3/4 or 2/3, doesn't sound like unanimity to me. Wanna try unanimity? Go to a UN Security Council meeting :)

Edited December 14, 2015 by elenhil

[elenhil]

If Apartheid was illegal by virtue of being against "natural law" (whatever that is, see the section in my earlier post regarding morality and law), then how is Russia's state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals not? By virtue of the degree of discrimination?

By not being discriminatory, that's how. You can't claim discrimination unless you prove the difference in treatment has no objective and reasonable justification (that is, by proving that the justification given by the courts is neither objective nor reasonable instead, which I believe would require some intense legal discernment on your part).

 

Unless I misread, I believe your statement regarding apartheid and natural law is a logical fallacy, and contradictory to your previous arguments regarding morality and law.

 

Do kindly try to point it out specifically.

 

By the way, why do you think Apartheid was illegal? 

[z929669]

No, in writing the UDHR, I think the crafters purposefully used language that would not impose upon the social beliefs of a great many individuals amongst a great many cultures that have contrasting beliefs to that of those crafting the UDHR.

“securing the continuous succession of generations and enabling the preservation and development of our multinational people <... in a manner consistent with subjective beliefs of law writers>”

“perverted notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalent” ... is itself a biased statement in supposing that anything other than (law writers') opinions is 'perverted', which is entirely subjective.

 

 

So in 20 years a 30-year homosexual will be a happy little drain on the welfare budget. Need I really explain why exactly?

... yes, please explain.

It is all really simple: You have your subjective beliefs, and I have mine. Your rights extend to the point where they do not detrimentally impact my own. Therefore, you can think whatever you like, and it does not have any detrimental bearing on what I think ... unless I let it.

Same goes for Boris and other contemporary Russians, IMO.

... and your manifest sexuality is a complex amalgam of your biology and your past experiences, but your inherent sexuality is almost certainly a product of your physiology as dictated and modified by actual physical factors (like genes, temperature, and hypoxia), but not by ideology or information.
 

 

Ed Miliband tried something like that (heard of the guy? I nearly hadn't). Didn't make it a fact, though...

I don't need to hear it from anyone or read it on anything ... I just inherently know that sexuality is a right just as it is my right to favor the color 'green'. There is a wiki article with some leads though.

Seriously, Z (hope it's OK to skip the numbers part). What article of UDHR is that? Or do you have another origin or rights in mind?

NP ;)

OK, my wrong. It's 3/4 in the US. Still, only 2/3 in Russia (and quite a number of other first world countries). I stand corrected. 3/4 or 2/3, doesn't sound like unanimity to me. Wanna try unanimity? Go to a UN Security Council meeting :)

I explained the reason why one needs essential unanimity in the post referenced

[n0mad23]

Actually, here in the US there are several state with "anti-sodomy" laws still in place.  They're almost never actually enforced, but they are law.  This indicates that at least in some US states, what you do in the bedroom is subject to the local law.  

 

Know your rights!

 

I do feel it's important to point out how often popular laws are neither just, nor are they "legal" outside of the arbitrary passing of laws to make them so.

[EssArrBee]

Sodomy was ruled on by the Supreme Court as legal a few years ago. Or rather your right to sodomy is inherent and the government shall make no law infringing on that right. All current laws are null at this point.

[elenhil]

“securing the continuous succession of generations and enabling the preservation and development of our multinational people <... in a manner consistent with subjective beliefs of law writers'>â€

 

“perverted notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalent†... is itself a biased statement in supposing that anything other than (law writers') opinions is 'perverted', which is entirely subjective.

OK, let me get this whole subjectivity thing straight.

 

Morality is subjective.

A Russian judge is subjective.

His judgement is entirely subjective.

His entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is entirely doubly subjective.

A whole panel of subjective Russian high court judges' entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is wholly entirely doubly subjective.

 

So far, so good.

 

A European Court of Human Rights judge is subjective.

His judgement is entirely subjective.

His entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is entirely doubly subjective.

A whole panel of subjective ECtHR judges' entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is wholly entirely doubly subjective.

A whole panel of subjective ECtHR judges' wholly entirely doubly subjective judgement that the wholly doubly subjective panel of Russian (Polish, British, whatever) judges “y reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries . . . are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements [of morality] as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet themâ€' is... how subjective exactly?

 

 

 

And, more importantly, how subjective is a judgement of what are the requirements of morality if said judgement is, according to nationwide surveys, approved by 86% of citizens?

 

in 20 years a 30-year homosexual will be a happy little drain on the welfare budget. Need I really explain why exactly?...

 yes, please explain.

In a welfare state one's pension is other people's taxes; ideally, these other people are your own children, and the state is underwriting your welfare check now in hope that it will get the money back from your children in the future. If it's not your children, then it's someone else's. Someone who, unlike you (not you personally, I believe), did want/care/manage to procreate. And whose children will now have to sponsor not only their old folks' retirement package but yours and your partner's as well. Not that anyone would hold it against you if you were childless because of some health problems. Which is not the same as when you're childless because two homosexual men can't beget children. Or when one's homosexual lifestyle left them with an STD-affected fertility problem (don't know about your country, but in Russia experts estimate that STDs account for up to 60% of cases of infertility).

 

So, one homosexual person's 'lifestyle choises' are, in fact, a tax on future generations. Or, rather, an unsustainable drain on the economy. Enough freeriders are bound to bring the welfare system down. And that without even touching upon other dangers of an ageing society. That is why the legislators are saying that you cannot really claim 'sexual autonomy'. Nothing is autonomous when it comes to the fundamental unit of a society. Not while you're living in one.

 

I don't need to hear it from anyone or read it on anything ... I just inherently know that sexuality is a right just as it is my right to favor the color 'green'.

 

That is OK by me, but this self-ascribed right is, sadly, not protected by either the state or the international human rights instruments. Which makes it even less uncontroversial (and enforceable) than, say, a 'right to euthanasia'.

Edited December 15, 2015 by elenhil

[n0mad23]

@EssArrBee - I am aware of the ruling.  Because I live on the Left Coast, I'm also aware of the background blow-back resulting from the Left Coast states rejecting federal law with regards to recreational marijuana use has also had.  The same "state's rights" arguments are being kicked around as a way to also reject the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, Roe v. Wade, and anti-segregation laws.  I think the only reason that they're all still in the background is they don't have the same level of popular support that ending marijuana prohibition has.

 

Strange times we live in.  One progressive step forward and then two repressive ones back.

 

I'd like to think (but am far too cynical) that progressive laws tend to be more popular than repressive ones.  One must never underestimate the motivating power of fear.

[EssArrBee]

In a welfare state one's pension is other people's taxes; ideally, these other people are your own children, and the state is underwriting your welfare check now in hope that it will get the money back from your children in the future. If it's not your children, then it's someone else's. Someone who, unlike you (not you personally, I believe), did want/care/manage to procreate. And whose children will now have to sponsor not only their old folks' retirement package but yours and your partner's as well. Not that anyone would hold it against you if you were childless because of some health problems. Which is not the same as when you're childless because two homosexual men can't beget children. Or when one's homosexual lifestyle left them with an STD-affected fertility problem (don't know about your country, but in Russia experts estimate that STDs account for up to 60% of cases of infertility).

 

So, one homosexual person's 'lifestyle choises' are, in fact, a tax on future generations. Or, rather, an unsustainable drain on the economy. Enough freeriders are bound to bring the welfare system down. And that without even touching upon other dangers of an ageing society. That is why the legislators are saying that you cannot really claim 'sexual autonomy'. Nothing is autonomous when it comes to the fundamental unit of a society. Not while you're living in one.

You do realize that gay people have families right? Your argument only holds the tiniest amount of water if you think they don't have any kids, but we live in an age where technology or arrangements get made all the time. Hell, in a lesbian relationship, they can have twice as many. Trust me the sperm banks aren't running out anytime soon. College kids will always need beer money. Being gay doesn't mean that you don't want kids. And what about straight people that can't have kids? Gotta suppress their rights too for the same reason. Can't have kids, gonna be a burden on the welfare system because they can't produce new people to hold it up. Can't make babies, can't get married, right? Hide your barren lifestyle propaganda from the kids or we'll fine you. "Can't have my children exposed to your propaganda or they might think it's okay go through life without having 5 loser children."

 

"...Or when one's homosexual lifestyle left them with an STD-affected fertility problem (don't know about your country, but in Russia experts estimate that STDs account for up to 60% of cases of infertility)." 

I'm sorry, but are you trying to say that straight people don't get STDs? I know that HIV/AIDS is still associated with being gay, but that isn't the cause of AIDS. It wasn't a disease sent from God to smite the sinners, it was a monkey disease that happen to make the jump to someone that was gay. Could have easily been a straight person and the demographics of it would be completely upended. You could make the argument that the gov't policy negatively affects society because they are probably ignoring the STD issue and pushing the alternate lifestyle underground. Hard to control anything when have your eyes closed. Maybe they should spread a little of that gay propaganda and see about mixing in some condom use propaganda while they're at it. They have an STD problem they are blaming on people that like to have sex with the same gender, but ignoring that it is possible to avoid some of the problem with a little outreach of pushing protection. Don't forget all those lesbians though. They don't get AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, or hep from sex, so they can make up for all those infertile men. Balance everything out. 

 

People having a bunch of kids is just as much a problem. You can pump out and endless supply of useless, mediocre, ain't-gonna-do-crap-with-their-lives children one right after the other and no one will say anything. Those kids are gonna be burden on the system. Not like rich people have 6 kids, it's poor people that do that. Poor people don't exactly give birth to the rich though. Just another mouth to feed they can't afford and w/e welfare program has to cover the cost.

 

Russia being in a demographic crisis isn't unique to Russia. They just use that to justify their discrimination. Half of Europe has a demographic crisis, even Japan has one. I don't see them saying it's all the gays not making babies that are really hurting them. Plus, people without kids can work more. Not taking a day off cause your kid is sick, not taking maternity leave, no added cost health insurance. Sounds like a win-win to me or that Russia just has one really stupid argument.

 

You know why people aren't having as many kids. Because there's to many damn people. Demographic crisis and cultural preservation are just the new codewords. They can't use that old, tired tribal nonsense of keeping the bloodlines 'pure' and not mixing the races so they gotta come up with a new way of saying it. "We aren't making enough Slavic people..." "We aren't making enough <insert w/e> people..." Don't know if you're paying attention, but we are not to far from everyone being a blackish, brownish, yellowish, whitish color. Maybe two centuries until that is the majority. What culture you think those people are going to preserve? Demographics and culture change with the wind, so passing laws to slow down change can affect society negatively in other ways. Keeps you entrenched in old ways of thinking so there is no growth. Look at segregation and Jim Crow in the US, we still have to deal with keeping money and civil rights from 30 million people 50+ years after it ended.

 

@EssArrBee - I am aware of the ruling.  Because I live on the Left Coast, I'm also aware of the background blow-back resulting from the Left Coast states rejecting federal law with regards to recreational marijuana use has also had.  The same "state's rights" arguments are being kicked around as a way to also reject the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, Roe v. Wade, and anti-segregation laws.  I think the only reason that they're all still in the background is they don't have the same level of popular support that ending marijuana prohibition has.

 

Strange times we live in.  One progressive step forward and then two repressive ones back.

 

I'd like to think (but am far too cynical) that progressive laws tend to be more popular than repressive ones.  One must never underestimate the motivating power of fear.

States usually pass laws that try to affect to people getting abortions or w/e, but they rarely block it anymore. They know that it will get struck down in court and then the state is liable for damages. Texas has some dumb law about doctors having to show you a video of an abortion or something equally dumb before they can perform the procedure. They mostly try to skirt the federal law.

 

States with legal weed do so at their own peril. The DEA still raids dispensaries in states with the medical only laws. They just decided to lay off the other states because prioritizing actual drug problems puts potheads at the bottom of the pile.

 

Sometimes even the progressive laws can be a bit repressive in the long run. Originally, rent control laws were considered progressive, but now there isn't an economist in sight that wouldn't laugh at it. Bay area still has rent control laws last time I checked. Lots of NIMBY stuff there too, so local gov'ts get in the way of progressive policy.