asterroc ([personal profile] asterroc) wrote2008-11-04 09:15 am

(no subject)

Scanning the various ballot measures listed by CNN, it turns out that Arkansas has a ballot initiative to prevent adoptions or fostering by unmarried couples - straight or gay. Glad to know they consider me an evil sinner too!

[identity profile] marquiswildbill.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 04:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Remember kids, it's not prejudice when you hate on everybody.

[identity profile] l0stmyrel1g10n.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)
yeah. i felt strangely comforted just now, when i saw they're not just hating gays, but all unmarried folks. we're all in this together.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 05:26 pm (UTC)(link)
It gets me more pissed off. Married couples already have too many advantages.

[identity profile] marquiswildbill.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Yep. They hate the gays so much they're willing to lump other groups in with them to oppress them. After all if you want kids but not marriage you still don't fit into their little box of acceptable to not hate.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 07:20 pm (UTC)(link)
If you look at this item alone, it seems it's okay to have your own children out of wedlock, it's just adopting that's bad. Maybe they should just outlaw adoptions, that'd be much simpler.

[identity profile] marquiswildbill.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 07:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Or ban children. We can't let the wrong sorts raise them.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 07:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Interestingly, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes not only the right to "marry and found a family" (without mentioning adoption or not), but also the right to privacy! There's so many ways we could twist that document to our advantage.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 05:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Right now I'm all for outlawing marriage.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 07:21 pm (UTC)(link)
"Can you hear me now?" ;)

[identity profile] marquiswildbill.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 07:22 pm (UTC)(link)
"what about now?"
rosefox: Green books on library shelves. (Default)

[personal profile] rosefox 2008-11-04 08:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Civil unions all around? Or nothing of the sort, it's all contract law to be individualized as one sees fit?

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
When I originally posted that comment my thought was "no civil unions whatsoever" - basically the state should have no stake whatsoever in the relationship between two individuals. However what prompted my comment to [livejournal.com profile] marquiswildbill was a previous comment elsewhere that my opinion regrading marriage changes every ten minutes.

While writing this, I find myself disliking the idea of individualized contracts for multiple reasons. For example some of us may be unwilling or unable to hire a lawyer to draw up an indivdualized contract - doing away with a standard contract but allowing individualized ones means that low-income people will be entirely unable to get any of the benefits of marriage, and I would be very against such discrimination. I also like the idea of having some standard contract so that for most people quick decisions can be made in emergency situations, for example a hospital knowing who can make medical decisions for a patient if s/he is brought in already unconscious.
rosefox: Green books on library shelves. (Default)

[personal profile] rosefox 2008-11-04 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)
You might be interested in [livejournal.com profile] karenbynight's post on the state's interest in marriage.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2008-11-04 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for that link, definitely interesting.