Republican war on women, and others they view as lesser beings

[cytg111]

Great. Like the monarchy, marriage is an antiquated tradition, just get rid of it. Same with Jesus. Lets step into the technological age of mankind. We’ve earned it. Leave the ghosts behind.

 

[Muse]

Great. Like the monarchy, marriage is an antiquated tradition, just get rid of it. Same with Jesus. Lets step into the technological age of mankind. We’ve earned it. Leave the ghosts behind.

Atheists are the most politically active group in American politics today. - Ryan Burge

"The values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable." - Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World"

 

[Fenixgoon]

Great. Like the monarchy, marriage is an antiquated tradition, just get rid of it. Same with Jesus. Lets step into the technological age of mankind. We’ve earned it. Leave the ghosts behind.

I would argue that legal marriage serves some social and economic functions - or at least we've set it up to be that way - while religious marriage is something else entirely (tradition).

"Marriage" is just shorthand for "a legally binding contract between two parties that entitles the couple to specific taxation and legal benefits/rights"
At least, IMO, as far as the state might be concerned, anyway.

 

[cytg111]

I would argue that legal marriage serves some social and economic functions - or at least we've set it up to be that way - while religious marriage is something else entirely (tradition).

"Marriage" is just shorthand for "a legally binding contract between two parties that entitles the couple to specific taxation and legal benefits/rights"
At least, IMO, as far as the state might be concerned, anyway.

Yea but its a shitty contract is it not? Wtf is “alimony”? Ok to a sum to get started again each on their own but… Nah its stupid.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yea but its a shitty contract is it not? Wtf is “alimony”? Ok to a sum to get started again each on their own but… Nah its stupid.

1) It's to make up for lost time
1.1) lump sum is going to be more difficult for a lot of people vs payment over time.

2) If you forgoe a career to be a stay-at-home parent/partner, you aren't just missing out on the income of your first job for a year. You're missing out on that income for all the years you stayed home, plus any raises and promotions, plus any investments you might have made along the way from earning that income - cumulatively through the course of the marriage.

So I can see a rationale for alimony. Whether the current system is good or bad, I have no experience...thankfully!

 

[cytg111]

I get it. Still think its stupid.

 

[Vic]

She was probably tired of his small dick, or more likely his small mind... and this is defense?

The Next Front in the GOP's War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

Steven Crowder is part of a growing right-wing chorus calling for an end to modern divorce laws.

www.rollingstone.com

“No, this was not my choice,” Crowder told his online audience last week. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

Imagine billing yourself as a freedom-loving proponent of small govt... while at the same time demanding that the govt be empowered to force people to stay in unhappy marriages.
How do they not see the obvious disconnect??

 

[SMOGZINN]

Marriage as a legal institution was originally conceived as property law. The woman along with other possessions was transferred from one man to another. You can still see that concept in a lot of the wording and laws surrounding marriage. It has spent the last 100 years failing because our beliefs and attitudes have moved away from the concept as it was conceived, but since a lot of people have a emotional/religious attachment to the property exchange ceremony we are desperately attempting to patch it as it breaks over and over again. It is like if we decided that because a lot of people have an emotional attachment to owning slaves we had to keep some symbolic slavery in place and patch the laws around it to keep up with the times. The entire idea is bonkers, but that is what religion gets you.

The correct solution would be to do away with civil marriage altogether and replace it with contract or corporate law, and let people do whatever they want in their religious ceremony with the understanding that it hold no legal standing, any more a Confirmation or Bat Mitzvah does. People could form marriage contracts that form a sort of corporation for the management of joint property and confers certain legal rights to them as members of that organization. It could include regulations for joining new people, removing people (basically divorce), or dissolving the union altogether. It could even be possible to have single member unions for the sake of raising children. I would be a massive undertaking to create the laws surrounding it and deciding what we as a society are willing to allow and what we should ban, but once done It would clear up a lot of problems we have today with marriage. Not all, because many of the problems are intractable, as anytime you are dealing with that strong of emotions people are going to find creative ways to break the system, but it would be better.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Is that poor woman really still alive though? Considering her ordeals. Being forced to carry a pregnancy of an non-viable fetus to term. Being threatened with criminal charges if she leaves to get an abortion of a non-viable fetus. The dark thoughts that must have ran through that poor woman's head. I'd argue this may break her and she's merely a walking dead.

I'd ask to keep the fetus and take it on a tour to every lawmaker who voted for this. I'm a dark sort, though.

 

[Pens1566]

I'd ask to keep the fetus and take it on a tour to every lawmaker who voted for this. I'm a dark sort, though.

In a jar, or like in a baby bjorn?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

In a jar, or like in a baby bjorn?

The bjorn works for me. Or maybe a cradle board.

 

[nickqt]

Republicans aren't at war with women. Or minorities. Or atheists. Or any one group.

They are attempting to limit the rights of all people who they deem are outside of their in-group.

It's called fascism.

Using the correct terminology to describe the scope and goals of their political ideology is pretty important.

Any person who will subsume their personal identity or best-interests in favor of being a vocal token member of the fascist in-group will actually receive the rights they would have otherwise lost. They'll also be given wealth, fame, and power...as long as they are useful.

Ultimately, as fascists gain more and more power, they start purging vocal tokens and in-group members on the outskirts of in-group status. More and more fascists become outsiders and get unpersoned, just like they unpersoned the people at the top of their purge lists early on in their reign of power. Here in the US it has been immigrants, and it's starting to ramp up to trans people. Basically, the smaller and less powerful the minority group, the higher up on the list they'll be to be unpersoned. The reasoning is pretty simple and has been vocalized famously.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

What we have to hope is that they gain their maximum amount of power while not in total control. Otherwise really bad things happen, especially if non-fascists are scared of their own shadows if that shadow happens to safely own and know how to operate a firearm. Fascists only understand and respond to power. Making fancy arguments and trotting out power point slides are exactly the response they want when they start wielding power.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think that before we talk about people who look down on others we should have some notion as to what the phenomenon is we are talking about. The usual name for such a world view is bigotry.

So what is bigotry if not a powerful and deeply rooted moral conviction that evil exists that the bigot knows what evil is and is justified thereby in the name of the good to prosecute that on others.

Thus because nobody questions the fact that the good is the good and that good is innately recognized to exist the assumption that one's own personal notions of what the good is rarely occurs. Few seek to actually find any absolute proof of one's personal convictions. Because of this the world is full of bigots all quite self convinced without any effort that they are correct.

For this reason, I believe, bigots are well understood to be blind. "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much."
So the enduring properties of bigoted attitudes handed down by culture remain just that, enduring.

The logical conclusion that falls out of this, again just my opinion, is that the path out of bigotry is self reflection. But nobody can make somebody self reflect that does not want to because the pain of the loss of one's bigotry are the pains brought on by the death of our sacred cows. We all believe our sacred cows are sacred because they are the good and we can't accept that there is no real good. Everybody knows this because pleasure is better than pain.

So what causes some people to self reflect, to examine their unexamined assumptions? Perhaps some answers to the problem might lie there.

 

[MrSquished]

I think that before we talk about people who look down on others we should have some notion as to what the phenomenon is we are talking about. The usual name for such a world view is bigotry.

So what is bigotry if not a powerful and deeply rooted moral conviction that evil exists that the bigot knows what evil is and is justified thereby in the name of the good to prosecute that on others.

Thus because nobody questions the fact that the good is the good and that good is innately recognized to exist the assumption that one's own personal notions of what the good is rarely occurs. Few seek to actually find any absolute proof of one's personal convictions. Because of this the world is full of bigots all quite self convinced without any effort that they are correct.

For this reason, I believe, bigots are well understood to be blind. "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much."
So the enduring properties of bigoted attitudes handed down by culture remain just that, enduring.

The logical conclusion that falls out of this, again just my opinion, is that the path out of bigotry is self reflection. But nobody can make somebody self reflect that does not want to because the pain of the loss of one's bigotry are the pains brought on by the death of our sacred cows. We all believe our sacred cows are sacred because they are the good and we can't accept that there is no real good. Everybody knows this because pleasure is better than pain.

So what causes some people to self reflect, to examine their unexamined assumptions? Perhaps some answers to the problem might lie there.

You are the guy with fancy prose and no sense of the actual reality happening around you. Flowery words that are basically meaningless. Pretty but as deep as a puddle.

FSKIM is like the super book smart dude that has no idea how the world actually works. Was always told what a good nerd he was, and can't stand being wrong about the obvious shit that is really happening outside his pseudo-intellectual bubble. He's like a less intelligent Spock. Clearly obvious fascist Republicans can't be fascist because it's ultimately just speculative!

These are the two types of morons that sound smart and are nerdy but have let the horrible people of the world take over because they are two fucking Lost in their own little worlds about how the world has actually worked and is actually working. They have no grasp of history which is the most amazing thing of it all.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are the guy with fancy prose and no sense of the actual reality happening around you. Flowery words that are basically meaningless. Pretty but as deep as a puddle.

FSKIM is like the super book smart dude that has no idea how the world actually works. Was always told what a good nerd he was, and can't stand being wrong about the obvious shit that is really happening outside his pseudo-intellectual bubble. He's like a less intelligent Spock. Clearly obvious fascist Republicans can't be fascist because it's ultimately just speculative!

These are the two types of morons that sound smart and are nerdy but have let the horrible people of the world take over because they are two fucking Lost in their own little worlds about how the world has actually worked and is actually working. They have no grasp of history which is the most amazing thing of it all.

Could it be that when you read history you read it through the eye of a bigot, in other words with colored lenses? My take on how you read history is with a sense of rage at what you are reading because it causes you to feel unconscious fears that disturb their slumber, thereby, and starting to enter consciousness with all the panic attack type error that is wont to bring. Perhaps when I look at history I see a record of what some people think happened. Perhaps for me I just don't get such a bad case of the screaming memes.

History is history. How you react to history is personal.

 

[Zorba]

Yea but its a shitty contract is it not? Wtf is “alimony”? Ok to a sum to get started again each on their own but… Nah its stupid.

Yeah, you should be able to throw that bitch to the curb any time you want and if she can't afford rent, well she can start sucking dicks for money, right?

I know a lot of men that are only able to be in the places they are because they had a stay at home wife that took care of everything at home. The marriage contract protects them from becoming homeless when the husband finds some young gold digger.

Becoming financially entangled with someone without a contract is fucking stupid, especially for the person with less finical security.

 

[cytg111]

Yeah, you should be able to throw that bitch to the curb any time you want and if she can't afford rent, well she can start sucking dicks for money, right?

I know a lot of men that are only able to be in the places they are because they had a stay at home wife that took care of everything at home. The marriage contract protects them from becoming homeless when the husband finds some young gold digger.

Becoming financially entangled with someone without a contract is fucking stupid, especially for the person with less finical security.

1. Oh shut the hell up! Please .

2. And for those people a contract makes a ton of sense.

3. That entirely depends on the on the entanglement though doesnt it?


Right now you have one contract fits all kinda deal, and then you got these prenups if you're rich enough to have lawyers on standby.
Prenups makes sense. Everybody should have prenups. *Everybody*. I mean, if you insist on baking it into the existing inferior frame of cultish belief/faith systems.
I'd just prefer we'd dump all that and make some new mandatory contracts where all this baked in naturally from the get-go.

Love is one definition of insanity. Lets get married by Elvis and fuck our lives up forever on this dopamine rush. Yea. It makes sense.(Sarcasm).

edit: I have an idea. I live in a place where we've collectively identified that young men are morons. Nothing wrong with being a moron. But on a large scale they are a threat to themselves(and others) given an opportunity. That's why, at 18 when you go get your MC license, the biggest legal thing you can buy/ride is a 125cc max 15hp MC. Couple years later, 500cc/48hp, couple years later, unlimited.
(I mean, we're still morons and kill ourselves riding but you have shaved off the top of the curve).

Something like that for marriage contracts?