Summary
Conservative lawmakers and activists are pushing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver declared, “It’s just a matter of when.”
Some legislators, like Oklahoma Senator David Bullard, are introducing bills to challenge the ruling, while Justices Thomas and Alito have signaled interest in reconsidering it.
Though most Americans support same-sex marriage, the court’s conservative shift is concerning.
The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act ensures federal recognition but does not prevent states from restricting same-sex marriage if Obergefell is overturned.
Holy shit. This is fucking huge.
This is fourth reich shit, non-hyperbole. The definition of “First they came for the communists…”
What do you think will come next? Banning interracial marriage? Banning divorce and women having bank accounts? Or banning speaking anything that is critical of the regime.
People need to start freaking out about this right now, not when they’re already on the otherside of ghettos and barbed wire fences.
Of course it is. Did you ever believe that it would stop at trans people?
The definition of “First they came for the communists…”
It has been like that when they first agitated in favor of bathroom and sports segregation, but many let it slide because they were all cis-genderist inside.
If only some trans advocates had warned that the anti-trans movement threatens the core of fundamental freedoms… Oh wait they did, but we called them nazis for not catering to our cisgenderism.
So yes, we reach the point where they also come for the gays, and of course they will come for women and black people. They have let on this shit very publicly.
I only sometimes history did not repeat itself sooo sarcastically.
TL;DR We told you so. Now join the resistance.
Well, they are probably going to come for the birth control and sex toys next.
But if they come for interracial marriage, I bet Clarence is going to be one of the most pikachu-faced motherfuckers (besides Peter Thiel?) on the planet. He thought he was one of the GOOD ones. Turns out they never approved of him OR his marriage…
Also, I want to add - this is not that huge, at least in the sense that it’s not at all surprising. I’m pretty sure Trollito and pals signaled they wanted to end Obergefell, as well as decisions on contraceptives and sodomy. Technically, a blowjob is sodomy. I wonder how many cishet men know that? I also don’t think it will be enforced for any of the insiders. I doubt the Sodomy Police are going to kick in the doors of fElon’s house when he’s getting a beej from one of his baby-mamas.
The only thing that is the least bit surprising (to me, anyway) is how many people ignored that this is who and what the cons really are. They are not for freedom. They hate people exercising their freedoms. They think THEY should decide who marries who. That THEY should decide how family planning is done. And that THEY get to decide what sexual encounters are allowed. And that THEY get to decide even how many dildos people own.
Also: what kind of pervert concerns themselves to this degree about what consenting adults do? It’s sick.
im betting THomas will be estatic when she can get rid of his wife, also thiel can just flee to NEW ZEALAND with his hubby.
The rate they’re going, we won’t need to wait long to find out.
Don’t forget separate areas on the bus and theatre for coloured folk. Gotta regress fully.
hitler only took 53 days to gain full control of germany,.
Banning interracial marriage
Banning? No, probably not; Thomas’ wife is white. (As is Thomas, aside from his skin color.) OTOH, they’ll probably say that it’s up to the states to allow it or not, and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.
You really think the rules will apply to the ruling class?
and whether or not they want to respect the interracial marriages performed by other states.
That’ll require some very entertaining twisting of the full faith and credit clause, or do you think we’ll be well past the point where they even go through the motions to pretend to have a legal rationale for anything they’re doing by the time this happens?
I couldn’t even make a semi-coherent claim as to how Alito, Thomas, Goresuch, Barret, and Kavanaugh (with Roberts tagging along) would toss that out, without also tossing out a ton of other stuff. Then again, Those six justices haven’t always been making coherent arguments for their ideologically-aligned decisions, so…?
I wish the media would stop saying ‘conservative’ and start saying ‘fascist’.
I just love the hypocrisy from republicans. They preach smaller government, but are always the first in line to take rights and freedoms away from those they dislike.
They may tell you otherwise, but their actions say they want to govern based on their own warped “Christian” ideals.
MAGA needs to unfuck themselves, and remember that this is a secular nation. You may not like who someone loves or that they worship a different god, or no god at all. Guess what? It’s none of your damn business. And it certainly isn’t a basis for treating people differently.
Republicans are either too stupid to understand the hypocrisy or actively engage in it specifically because they enjoy trolling.
Conservatives with a semblance of coherent thought are Democrats.
Anyone that actually understands the system knows both parties are right of center and left is basically a boogie man with no real-world presence in the US.
I just love the hypocrisy from republicans. They preach smaller government, but are always the first in line to take rights and freedoms away from those they dislike.
More than anything else, their inability to perceive the friction between these stances is what frustrates me the most about conservatives, and convinces me that all their supposed “values” are just the high sounding words they use to justify various forms of bigotry and control.
Another amazing contradiction they never manage to grasp lies among the subpopulation of MAGAs that call themselves libertarian. I had a right-wing friend that freely professed libertarian viewpoints for years. Railed against the government for even getting involved in social issues. Now, like many of the rest of em, he’s one of the biggest apologists for reproductive care restrictions and reigning in the press…
I’m not sure if it’s the hivemind or they just really can’t stand a world full of differences they have to endure.
i know 1-2 asian tubers i used to followed like that. one is a sht for brains when turned full maga and anti-vax , he celebrated trump winning but congragulated NEVADAS “ABORTION RIGHTS” STANCE. i was saying in that sub of thier channel, which is it? do you support trump who is probably going to rubber stamp abortion bans or do support anti-abortions? and the other ones slightly more clever, is called liberterians by his fans, but hes so low info like the other dude its embarrassing, and immediately call things woke when it contradicts his rants. also being asians that you are and supporting maga is pretty “disrespectful/disgraceful to asians”, i can understand vietnamese for being the way they are with maga, but you being “other asians” which are almost always a butt of a joke when referring to race,and having almost no influence in hollywood, unless you play a asian stereotype, and almost hold no political positions at large state or national level. in general because asians do not like to ruffle the feathers.
The gop, putin, fox, and right wing media has gotten them in such a knot that they cant untie themselves. they almost became selfware with luigi, when MSM dint realized by blasting him 24/7 was actually hurting them.
I hate this country. My loving marriage has far more right to exist than these ghouls’
Agree entirely on the value judgement but it’s not a right if a single party can remove it.
It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.
Now it’s too late.
That’s the thing about rights.
There’s no such thing as a “God-given right.” Rights are earned by fighting. By bloodshed and tears. And they’re lost once again by complacency.
It should have been written into the damn constitution with an ammendment along with bodily autonomy for women. But that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.
An amendment would have taken 38 state legislatures ratifying it. There aren’t 38 state legislatures likely to pass ratification of an amendment that guarantees a right for any two adults to marry without exception and also guarantees a right for any woman to terminate any pregnancy without exception at her will.
That’s probably tied for the lowest odds any hypothetical amendment has of being ratified.
Thankyou. I didn’t realise quite how difficult it would have been.
So sad that things so obviously harmless and bettering for humanity can’t get anywhere near that 76% support in the richest most privileged nation the world has ever seen.
Humanites high water mark is decidedly low considering the potential.
Oh well.
that would have taken some guts and foresight by the democratic leaders.
My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.
My understanding is that constitutional amendments also take a high bar to pass with 2/3 of states agreeing to the proposal and 3/4 ratifying. Given the issues getting even more basic things through the Senate/House I could definitely see this getting blocked by red states.
Two routes to amend the Constitution.
- Both houses of Congress pass a proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then 3/4 of states ratify that amendment in their state legislatures. This is how every amendment to date has occurred.
- 2/3 of state legislatures call for a Constitutional Congress, during which any number of changes may be made, but any changes must be agreed to by 3/4 of the states. Congress gets no say in this process. Congress getting no say in this process is the point - it exists so that if there’s an issue with the Constitution that Congress is unable or unwilling to resolve (for example if Congressional power needs to be curtailed in some fashion), it can be fixed despite them.
Note the key thing here: Republicans have been pushing hard at the state level for decades, and 2 is why. If ever 38 state legislatures are red, they can more or less arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution to their will regardless of what the remaining states or anything at the federal level has to say about it.
The American people need to rise up, just a matter of when.
When did the Germans rise up?
The Spartacist rose up way too damned early and got a solid chunk of what could’ve been resistance elements murdered. Including folks like Rosa Luxemburg who told them it was stupid and too early.
They were operating in the context of the ashes of World War 1 and disintegrating empires. The total collapse of centralized authority and subject nations forming governments independently can hardly be considered ‘too early’.
Considering it ‘too early’ in the sense that roving bands of monarchist paramilitaries were still running amok unchecked and (then legitimized by the government?) Yeah, bad time for all who didn’t support Prussian hegemony.
I meant it in the second context, the Freikkorps out numbered them and were functioning as a de facto branch of the Weimar government. Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest and well it was ill advised.
Its also argueable that the slaughter of the Spartacists and leftist in general paved the way for the Nazis. While I dont buy into it I do suspect that if the Sparatacists couldve been a massive boon to the German Resistance later on.
Also I will point out my bias, I do not think direct confrontation is generally all that effective unless its defensive in nature. I believe in absolutely abusing asymmetry when attacking someone. Thusly all my opinions on such actions will default to the idea of abusing asymmetry.
Combine that with the fact that the revolt happened when the Weimar Republic was at its strongest
That I think isn’t quite the case. The uprising occurred in the time period after the Armistice and before the 1919 elections. The Weimar government prior to the 1919 elections existed solely on the legitimacy inherited from the Kaiser. The Spartacists were extrajudicially executed a week before the elections. The constution wasn’t written until the following summer.
The problem with newly born governments is that their weakest periods can often times be their strongest periods since they are liquid and more adaptive.
Just to use an example of what I mean, the modern United States will most likely collapse in on itself due to an over reliance on legalism and folks like Musk and Trump who just ignore it. On the otherhand had Musk and Trump somehow existed back during the founding years of the United States they wouldve been tared and feathered if not just outright shot.
Next up: Interracial marriage.
The US is being run by regressives.
Then slavery.
We already have this, anyone seen our penal system?
Don’t need to go that far. Most Americans can’t quit their job for fear of loosing medical coverage.
I’d calm that indentured servitude with a couple extra steps.
California voted whether or not to abolish prison slavery this past cycle. They said nah 🙃
It’s okay because uncommitted are patting themselves on the back.
In fact they’d probably go, “Harris would’ve done the same thing!” lmao.
I’m still seeing them saying it here on Lemmy, in fact. Still blaming the Democratic Party for things and choices that they themselves chose to make.
And all because the Democratic Party did not give them a perfectly pretty, pretty pony.
Unfortunately uncommitted voters would not have changed the results pretty much at all. The representation in the voting population is a highly significant percent of the population as far as statistics are concerned.
If there was 100% voting then statistically they results would be identical to the point of no changes considering the sample size of people who did actually vote versus the whole population.
Wrong, just wrong.
36% of eligible voters did not vote. That’s more people than voted for Trump.
I don’t think you understood my point when it comes to statistics and significance. I wasn’t talking about how many people didn’t vote, I was talking about how the people who did vote is a monumental sample size for the entire population. So if the entire population did vote the outcome would be very similar to what the sample size predicted with their actual votes.
Still mathematically incorrect, I’m afraid.
Your point isn’t valid because “people who voted” is certainly not a random sample but it is also not an unbiased or stratified sample of the population.
It’s very plausible indeed that (for example) democratic leaning voters were jaded and stayed home whilst republicans were excited about the disruptive influence their guy mightt have.
Your sample contains no eligible voters whatsoever in the stayed-home category and it’s heinous extrapolation to assume that your proportion extends into this group with markedly different behaviour to those in your sample, especially when the percentages were so close in any case.
Using your logic, I could do a hypothesis test with a tiny sample of hundred voters and get my margin of error under a SL of 5% and claim statistical significance, because if I excluded people who voted in person or people who voted by postal vote, I would get strikingly different outcomes. Thus, if voter preference is correlated so markedly even by method of voting, it’s absurd to suggest that there’s no correlation over fact of voting.
By your logic (statistical significance irrespective of how non-random and non-stratified a sample is), no pre election poll could ever be wrong.
Statistical significance isn’t the same as truth. How representive and free from bias your sample is are two things that are critical to the validity of your conclusions.
Well sure but there are many niche groups who when aggregated together could’ve put us over the top. I just have to highlight this particularly group that so clearly shot themselves in the foot and should, ostensibly, know better. Trump supporters I can even understand more.
Though most Americans support same-sex marriage, the court’s conservative shift is concerning.
This is all anyone needs to understand on the subject. They don’t give a shit about what the majority wants anymore- as they’re making it known far-and-wide that they are no longer employed by us. They’re employed by themselves.
Uh, yeah. They overturned Roe vs Wade, also supported by the majority and Republicans and Democrats. They don’t give a shit what The People want…
More people need to see this comment.
They have a fairly large group that isn’t going to change their votes either way. Then, they have another group that actually might stay home, but things like this motivates them. They don’t have to care about the parts of their base that aren’t going to change their mind.
Yep. They didn’t give a flying fuck about public sentiment on the right to abortion, either.
Imagine being so gay that you sit around thinking about gay sex.
I don’t have to imagine it
What office are you going to run for?
I dunno something gay
Office of missionary for the sole purpose of procreation probably
Chairman of the Federal Department of Cum Guzzling
DOGE?
DOGE?
Department Of Guzzling Ejaculate? Explains why they’ve got Big Balls working there. Somebody’s got to be the supply side.
My god. If Elon could read he’d be dead from that one.
So, Focus on the Family?
Dear LGB Drop The T losers
You played yourself, they were never concerned about “my kind” appropriating “your kind”, they were never after us, they were always after you, we were just in the way.
First they came for the communists.
When you sell yourself out as a lapdog, don’t be surprised if you end up reaping what you sow.
First they came for the Trans people…
They were after all of us. We wouldn’t’ve been spared by not being in the way
You would have been stronger together, though.
That’s why most of us have stood together yes
By being “in the way”, I mostly mean society had moved on from “The Gay Debate” and was now onto the “Trans Debate”
The Conservatives needed to end the “Trans Debate” in their favor, even if by force moreso than actual public opinion, before they could turn back time to undo the “Gay Debate” ended in a way they didn’t like
My supervisor is a hardcore trumper - and also a lesbian who proudly talks about her wife. Nothing that is happening now is good, but it will at least be a little amusing to hear her “but the leopards weren’t supposed to eat my face!” lamentations.
Any LGBTQ person that voted for Trump deserves what they get. I have no sympathy for a person that can’t do the most basic google search and has no interest in bettering the world for other people.
The only reason most people voted for Trump was Money or Immigrants. Two of the most selfish reasons.
don’t forget racism
plenty of racist gays, how they manage to rationalize it i don’t know but I personally know a few
throw in a large helping of self hatred
That’s a weird thing I’ve seen in my life. Of the 5 most loud, vocal Trump supporters I know, 3 are lesbians. It’s weird.
The leader of Germany’s Neo Nazi Party is a woman dating an immigrant woman. I don’t fuckin get it
Maybe what they all have in common is wanting to be the lone exception to all the suffering others of their kind will go through. Some sick joy found in being a lone survivor.
Yeah, but in the long view, they’ll just be the last victim, most likely.
Let me guess - TERF?
No, she hates black people. Like REALLY hates black people.
Ahhhh yeah that tracks
She’ll just blame Democrats and the left, somehow.
Yeah… she’s fucked. I wouldn’t be surprised if they anull every non-hetero marriage. And sadly, all the faces eaten by leopards will be of little consolation to those hurt by this.
Maybe that’s the long game. There are worse ways to get out of a relationship.
And then they will come after them for back taxes or something.
I actually know a few people in LGBTQ who voted for Bronzo the Clown. Have not heard their reactions to how things have been going since he took office.
And after that I’m sure inter-racial marriage will be next. Fuck these people
And Thomas would vote to repeal without a second thought.
In his concurring opinion on Dobbs (eliminating constitutional protection for abortion), Thomas wrote:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue.
This is basically a list of precedent cases he wants the court to revisit. The conspicuously absent case is Loving v. Virginia, which is what protects interracial marriage. There’s also a pretty obvious reason why: he’s in an interracial marriage.
“Liberty Council” seems to take away liberties. Yup. That sounds like conservatives all right.
Very “Ministry of Truth” of them.
Liberty Council
If nothing else, qons can always be counted on to take meanings of words and employ them in ways that are not the meanings normal people have.
Take for instance, their use of the terms and phrases: liberty, freedom, patriotism, small government, and political correctness.
These are the exact same types of assholes that would think nothing of putting a motto like “Arbeit macht frei” on a goddamn concentration camp.
Anybody have any idea what’ll happen to those of us already gay married?
Initially just the rights gained by it removed. Any tax benefits, recognition of dependent status, military spouse stuff etc etc.
Later a list will be created and distributed.
The public will be encouraged to refuse service to openly gay people. From there it’s a quick ride to imprisonment and reeducation until it’s similar to Saudi Arabia. Then who knows.
Later a list will be created and distributed.
I have a gay friend who’s in a long term relationship but not married. Given when he and his guy got together, I half expect the reason is worries that having his orientation be a matter of public record might become a serious liability in a potential future that is reasonably likely.
I can’t imagine the fear I’d have in their situation. I’d probably do something similar.
Though if we’ve learnt anything from history it’s that their friends and co-workers will out them to the booted thugs at the drop of a hat anyway.
So maybe I’d go for the ‘flame while I can’ approach.
He’s in about as safely a blue state as they come, his circle is generally very progressive, and he works for a liberal/progressive leaning employer. He’s about as safe as he can be, all things considered.
I however live in the reddest of red states that used to be safely blue and would consider leaving if it weren’t for my folks and my wife’s folks being here and needing help.
At least we’re probably pretty safe from the worst of it until the targets get down to people with medical issues.
doesnt SA, also expel gay people and “denounce thier citizenship”
Well with this administration, reprogramming camps, a.k.a. forces labor camps are on the table. So is deportation, erasure, and ‘‘where did they go? I have no idea what you mean? Who could possibly say? They just disappeared I guess!’’
probably trying to abolish the right to marry same sex, or illegitimize the married already?
You might want to seriously consider moving to a country less hostile towards gay people.
if only were that easy, most wont give you a citizenship fast tracked , if your not in category like: being a SCIENTIST in a in demand field, or uncommon specialty in a MD.
or the other somewhat easier, is marrying someone in one of those countries, asap.
One thing they’re going after is adoption and surrogacy.
According to project 2025. A child shall be raised by their biological mother and father.
Queer erasure won’t end with TQ. They’ll go after LGB too.
That hits divorce, IVF, and IUI for heteros as well
dude just look at the taliban and know that’s where we’re headed. except jesus flavored. divorce is irrelevant if all you have to do is accuse your wife of something and…“redeem your family’s honor”
and if the (forced into marriage) wife wants a divorce? “LOL shut your filthy whore mouth and get back in the kitchen”
except jesus flavored
There is no trace of Jesus Christ flavoring in whatever the fuck those “christians” are practicing. Even Satan is into punishing the wicked. These motherfuckers reward evil.
Mmmm holy infant so tender and mild 😋
I agree, there is no Jesus is those ideas. Unfortunately, there is some Peter and Timothy. :( I’ve been reading the New Testament on my own as religious exploration. I’ve enjoyed who Jesus is, but his disciples represent more of their times.
Just remember the names assigned to the gospels are not reflective of the actual apostles. John is likely several different people. Paul wrote most of his letters etc.
Reddit’s academicbiblical subreddit is very good if you want non-theological takes on the scriptures.
Thanks for that note. I’m reading it first hand without much supporting text.
I encourage looking into how some of the more rigorous traditions interpret it all once you’re done. Catholicism in particular has some valuable ideas such as the non-overlapping magesteria of science and religion. The basic concept of which being that if the Bible says something that science counters it was likely metaphorical or a more primitive understanding, as the point of it is to convey spiritual truth and not scientific or historical fact.
I left Christianity myself due to theological disagreements, but there are many paths up the same mountain and I wish you the best of luck in your seeking
Yeah, it was a blast hearing the priest preach around Jesus’ words during sunday mass. He died for our sins, now let’s cherrypick his teachings to justify ours.
It’s the false prophets and antichrist of revelations. That’s their whole thing, using the aesthetic of holiness to convince Christians away from the teachings of Jesus. On their foreheads they wear a symbol of their devotion to the antichrist.
I’m not a Christian and I think revelations was a really bad trip influenced by a fascistic wave during the early Roman empire, especially considering what a shitshow the Julian dynasty was. But still I don’t see any good interpretation of their religion that doesn’t damn Christian nationalists
You say that, and yet transubstantiation. Jesus flavored wine and crackers every Sunday.
It’s like maple flavoring versus real maple syrup. It’s just a cheap imitation pretending to be the real thing superficially only
and if the (forced into marriage) wife wants a divorce
Well, you have to understand, she’s much, much, younger than he is, nearly a child, she can’t possibly know what she really wants. She’s 17, he’s 50, just the arrangement Jesus approves of, ask any Republican geezer and he’ll tell you.
“You will live as we tell you to”
Yep, that’s the goal. Only the wealthy, who are otherwise protected from the arm of the law, will be the only ones who are not just chattel for the workhouses.
They need more workers? Impregnate more women via IVF, with the “economic exclusion” that will be crafted into law, that only applies to the workplace. Why worry about divorce when your master is choosing for you? Too many workers to feed? UID, ordered by your master.
They control everything for the working class, even the reproductive cycle. Even love needs to be removed from the equation. 1984 laid out the “why” for it all.
Orphan crushing machine comes one step closer to reality
Adoption, in many cases, contributes to a situation where pregnant people are coerced into giving up their child. It’s a problem most people don’t want to hear about, though, like most problems primarily faced by women.
Not all cases though. So project 2025 is going to be pretty damaging even in this area.
I’m sure that’s true for some cases.
Many though? I’m going to need a source otherwise I’m calling bullshit.
TBH I just know about this because of people I know who’ve given up children for adoption. Mirah Ruben’s The Stork Market looks like it covers a lot of what they talk about basically, but I haven’t read it.
There are a lot of things that I was raised to believe in a liberal society, like police being good for everyone, America being the good guys, communism being bad; and of course later I learned that it was not as it had seemed. For me, learning about the harm done by the international adoption industry was also one of those eye-opening moments. Fundamentally, it’s an industry with little oversight and which has an incentive to acquire babies from people in a rough spot in life, because the middleman makes a profit; that this incentive exists should give you pause, if nothing else.
How has this realistically altered my worldview? I now think adoption ought to be considered a duty or perhaps a privilege, but not a right. In other words, nobody should have the absolute right to have children just because they can’t conceive them in the usual way. I also think that adopted children should always have the right to know who their birthparents are and to reach out to them or their next of kin. I also think there shouldn’t be an international adoption industry, or at least it should have vastly more oversight. For what it’s worth, this is quite a centrist position compared to the more radical viewpoints of the people I know who have given up children. (They tend to think adoption is wrong in all cases – though that’s generally for a certain definition of “adoption” which basically means “erasure of the birthparents.”)
Anyway, I don’t particularly desire to argue about this back and forth, so I won’t. Maybe you think the people I know are naïve for being salty about choices they made as teenagers that they regret now. That’s what I thought at first. If you call bullshit, ok, but I hope that next time you hear about this issue from someone else you’ll be inclined to give them a listen at least.
(Is it homophobic to say that you don’t have a right to raise children if you can’t conceive them? Perhaps. If it means anything, I’m gay myself; but I also don’t have any interest in children, so that doesn’t really matter either way.)Edit: tree_frog has convinced me that I shouldn’t have mentioned that this wasn’t about adoption in same-sex marriage specifically, since apparently that just makes it sound like I’m secretly homophobic, and also small-minded apparently, so please ignore that I guess.International adoption yeah that’s definitely absolutely fucked. I will say I think it shouldn’t be a right per se to be allowed to adopt, but I do think that adoption agencies should have grounds on which they aren’t allowed to discriminate.
Oh yeah for sure. By “nobody should have a right to adopt” I didn’t mean “only some people of certain demographics should have the right to adopt.”
It’s small-minded. In response to your question.
And I understand that there are economic incentives for people to give up their children for adoption. I also know that there’s economic issues that can make it difficult to raise a child.
And I also know that the way project 2025 is written, this will also target surrogacies.
If you didn’t want to argue, if you didn’t want to debate, why bring it up? Because from here it feels like propaganda to be honest.
Paraphrasing: I’m a gay man who has no interest in raising children. And I’m okay with the far right targeting queer folks because won’t someone think of the women? Also, here’s my left cred and I don’t really want to debate my position.
I mean that’s what you just did right? Do you see how that looks like propaganda?
I’m not sure how to respond to any of your questions. Does the fact that my argument looks like propaganda to you invalidate the argument? Should I have not touched on homophobia at all, despite it being relevant?
As for leftist cred, I’ve said it elsewhere but I’d consider myself only about 50% leftist, and <50% liberal. Sorry to disappoint.
I don’t really understand what’s small-minded. It’s small-minded to say you don’t have the right to raise children if you can’t conceive them? I would think small-mindedness is normally associated with not thinking critically, but given that I changed my mind after – ah sorry, that will sound like propaganda again. I’m not sure how to argue here.
Btw, I’m not okay with project 2025, and I am sure that they will do only harm here. But Hitler painted dogs, and I won’t condemn painting dogs. I’m not going to back down from my belief that the adoption industry is harmful just because project 2025 wants to end adoption. I don’t even want to see adoption ended entirely, as I said; so yeah I don’t agree with project 2025 even in this area. Do I sound less like propaganda now? Or does trying to sound less like propaganda only make it worse.
Edit: Ah, I get it now. You are annoyed that I mentioned I’m gay. Yeah I mean, I try to avoid playing the minority card to win an argument usually. In this case, I thought people might think I’m just being homophobic, and was trying to signal that my beliefs about adoption have nothing to do with adoption in same-sex marriage specifically. But, yeah, point taken.
Anyway, if you want to argue about pointless stuff like this, yeah, sure, I mean, I’ll bite. But if you’re going to be asking me for specific data relating to pregnant people being coerced into giving up their children, I’m really not terribly knowledgeable so you aren’t going to learn much more than what I’ve already said. I mean, I can pester my friends for talking points, I guess.
And finally, edit 2, just because it bothers me: this is lemmy, this is the 2020s, please, stop assuming everyone on the internet is a man.
edit 3: no actually, I’m just stuck on this “propaganda” thing. Is there some magic shibboleth to prove that I’m actually speaking genuinely? Is that not a general-purpose argument against anyone who happens to disagree with you? Or, like, do you personally have such a narrow Overton window that you literally think that anyone who disagrees with you on one (1) matter must be secretly a plant for your furthest political rivals, and the fact that they have included other sentiment which looks like an ally’s only proves it’s a false flag? “Shit – she just said she doesn’t agree with project 2025. She must be lying! Don’t ask how I know.”
I didn’t read your whole comment. I got to the point where you said you don’t want to see adoption end entirely.
And what I want you to understand, is the language in project 2025 is about ending adoption entirely for queer families.
So yes, when you come in to a thread about queer erasure, with concern trolling about women, yeah it’s going to feel like propaganda. And I had to go through your comments to be sure you weren’t a bot.
Because not all adoptions are wrong. To use your painted dog argument, yes some adoption agencies are predatory. Yes capitalism is predatory and it puts women in a shitty position when it comes to adoption. But that doesn’t make all adoptions evil.
Like if me and my partner wanted to be surrogates for a couple that couldn’t have babies, illegal.
That’s some authoritarian bullshit.
And I don’t know where you fall on the left spectrum but I’m a fucking anarchist. I don’t need authoritarians telling me my partner and I can’t carry children for our friends. Fuck that.
So yeah, adoption is way more nuanced than you are making it out. And in your defense of women, you defended queer erasure.
And then played your gay card to justify your shitty take. While throwing queer families under the bus.
For the umpteenth time: I don’t support project 2025! Why would you even think that? I do think adoption in some cases is okay. Being queer has nothing to do with whether or not adoption is okay. Project 2025 has nothing to do with my feelings about adoption. I have mixed feelings about surrogacy, but if it’s for friends I believe it’s okay. I’m not an anarchist anymore, I’m more authoritarian these days – after all, I do think there should be an authority stopping people from polluting the planet and coercing pregnant people into giving up their children.
Can you please remember the human and not assume that someone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith and is intentionally using evil tactics or a “concern trolling” bot?
I do not know how to be more clear about me not supporting project 2025, me supporting queer people, and me understanding that not all cases of adoption are the same. Like, I feel like almost every sentence I have said is about one of those things, in support of that thesis. It is as though you are imagining I have said things entirely the opposite of what I have said.
Gonna need a source on those “many cases” of coercion, I’d like to hear about it.
