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.
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”
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.
You say that, and yet transubstantiation. Jesus flavored wine and crackers every Sunday.
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.
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 like maple flavoring versus real maple syrup. It’s just a cheap imitation pretending to be the real thing superficially only
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.
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.
Gonna need a source on those “many cases” of coercion, I’d like to hear about it.
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.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.