335
Conservatives push to overturn same-sex marriage: "Just a matter of when"
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
335 points (98.6% liked)
News
36221 readers
295 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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."
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.
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."