>Scotus announces its cool to say no to fags in regards to compelled speech
>they finally cite religious liberty as a foundational reason why
W E W
@SpurgAnon
End of month, and our government made gay marriage the same entity as straight marriage. For no fucking reason. While we're still suffering from insane inflation.
> For no fucking reason.
wouldn't you need a legal justification to keep them separate? and wouldn't it need to be non-religious in nature? the thing we're talking about here is a legal construct after all, not a religious one (the religious one certainly exists tho)
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
That's actually my problem too.
There are no alternatives to this legal contract, that obviously doesn't fit all the situations.
And by using this exact version now even on same sex couples, it is even less adaptive to the individual needs.
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
The natural situation is: people will form groups of mostly 2, and sometimes have kids.
The fact, that the state needs to fuck this natural instinct up with 100 pages legal document is disgusting to me. And now, they will push the same dystopian control on gays too.
I think it's at least somewhat analogous to "abolish the police". there are plenty of examples of abuse but that institution came to exist for good reason. things could certainly stand to be improved tho
@roboneko @SpurgAnon
Sorry, but I missed the argument.
> There has to be a good reason
That is the premise, but without a good reason, you are admitting defeat.
Yes, there has to be a reason. And without it, this shit is indefensible
@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
Do you mean the law or the social interaction?
Of course I see the benefit of 2 peoples saying "I am fully committed to this".
Marriage law on the other hand is a legal trade document based around creating the conditions for leaving. And that is the exact opposite.
> Their commitment is absolutely different on the fundamental level.
how is it fundamentally different than a straight couple who decides not to have children?
one of the primary social ills that marriage laws attempt to address are the things that happen when one of the parties stabs the other in the back several decades later. having older or disabled or whatever people unexpectedly left destitute is not in society's best interests
that isn't to say that there aren't serious issues with the current legal situation. same as with the police in many places. but even if they could use improvement, these institutions both exist for good reason
@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
Why do you keep repeating "there are issues", while ignoring them completely?
A broken legal system is something, that cannot be allowed to continue, and you ask me, why shouldn't it be forcen on even more people? Because that will make it even more broken.
> A spoon in context of grabbing food
ok. It helps somewhat
> A broken spoon in context of grabbing food
Doesn't help at all. It is actually wasting your time, and it cut your hand.
> A broken spoon in context of what to eat
What are you doing? Why would you eat a broken spoon?
> don't fix that issue because there are other issues
and I'm saying that both should be fixed but that one wrong doesn't justify another
@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
One wrong justifies not spreading a broken system into even more broken context.
What's so complicated about that?
@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
So, again. Can I divorce you after we split rent for an year?
@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
I also see the benefit of two gay people committing to each other. And guess what? Their commitment is absolutely different on the fundamental level. And they do deserve the right to form their own boundaries without some fat politician fucking it up.