Deadbeats

[Deleted]

Edit: Fully read your post. You're an idiot. This is just homophobic and general stupid nonsense hidden behind the guise of "Mens Rights". You're no better than the Feminazis.

Isn't he saying that he isn't a MRA, just that he gets accused of being one? Seems like he's criticizing them alongside feminists.

[Dundebuns]

Just a bigot trying to disguise himself in plain sight. not much to do here really

- no gay marriage, there is no basis in either the US or other country's constitution for this

There's no basis for this NOT to happen due to many countries constitutions. Most countries are secular states, just like the US, and there will be no wording limiting consenting adults to get married regardless of gender or identity.

[Orbitus]

It seems you've put more thought into this reply than the OP did with his whole little 'manifesto' post...

Obviously you have never seen a Thunderaan post before. He always posts gibberish like this.

[GennGreymane]

/popcorn..

Everyone is stealing my popcorn. I have to go back to the store once a day now! At least leave me poptarts in exchange!

[Revi]

Of course MRA is similar, they're a direct reactionary movement to feminism. They are the same, just for men.

[Deleted]

I actually agree with you on about how child support should be used, but you know people would pretend to take care of a child to avoid paying child support

That's not how it works. If the court deems them unfit they lose custody.

The law disagrees with you, and why would you want to change it?

There are good laws and bad laws. I don't think you can name me even one person that agrees with every single law ever written.

You want to give people who want children a less of an option to have one? That's pretty cruel.

Again, this is an emotional appeal and I refuse to be manipulated in this way. Feelings do not trump parental responsibilities. If they did, a case could be made for a host of other immoral things like theft (why do you want to deny people the "right" to a car? Let's confiscate half of what the wealthy have so we can give them a car!) and rape (i.e. women shouldn't have the freedom to say no to Elliot Rodger because he really really REALLY needs sex and that trumps bodily autonomy, LOL, why are you sooo cruel to deny Rodger sex because you want to uphold your "individual freedom" LOLOL?).

Second, if your peepee is shooting blanks, guess what? You are never going to have a child. You will be raising someone else's child either way whether it's adoption or sperm donation. The government isn't obligated to provide you an opportunity for something that you cannot achieve naturally on your own. The government protects rights that already exist under natural law, it doesn't grant rights. And any contract that overrides these rights should be null and void. It would be like making a contract to rob someone. Null and void as far as law is concerned and unenforceable. Same principle applies here.

[Hraklea]

There are good laws and bad laws. I don't think you can name me even one person that agrees with every single law ever written.

And yet, you think that "because the constitution says so!" is a good argument.

[zenkai]

That's not how it works. If the court deems them unfit they lose custody.



There are good laws and bad laws. I don't think you can name me even one person that agrees with every single law ever written.



Again, this is an emotional appeal and I refuse to be manipulated in this way. Feelings do not trump parental responsibilities. If they did, a case could be made for a host of other immoral things like theft (why do you want to deny people the "right" to a car? Let's confiscate half of what the wealthy have so we can give them a car!) and rape (i.e. women shouldn't have the freedom to say no to Elliot Rodger because he really really REALLY needs sex and that trumps bodily autonomy, LOL, why are you sooo cruel to deny Rodger sex because you want to uphold your "individual freedom" LOLOL?).

Second, if your peepee is shooting blanks, guess what? You are never going to have a child. You will be raising someone else's child either way whether it's adoption or sperm donation. The government isn't obligated to provide you an opportunity for something that you cannot achieve naturally on your own. The government protects rights that already exist under natural law, it doesn't grant rights. And any contract that overrides these rights should be null and void. It would be like making a contract to rob someone. Null and void as far as law is concerned and unenforceable. Same principle applies here.

Why is a sperm donor personally responsible? If I donate my kidney, am I now personally responsible for that person?

[Deleted]

And yet, you think that "because the constitution says so!" is a good argument.

The constitution isn't merely an ordinary law. It's also a check on government power. Without it, the government could literally do anything pass any kind of insane law that conflicted with rights of individuals.

[Hraklea]

The constitution isn't merely an ordinary law. It's also a check on government power. Without it, the government could literally do anything pass any kind of insane law that conflicted with rights of individuals.

Which doesn't mean the constitution is morally correct by default.

[Aori]

So this thread actually has nothing to do with deadbeats?

[Deleted]

Why is a sperm donor personally responsible? If I donate my kidney, am I now personally responsible for that person?

Technically, if there was any malicious intent, and I don't know of any case where that has ever happened, you could face murder charges. Like let's say you deliberately gave someone a cancer kidney and also somehow colluded with the doctors to go along with it.

Again, very unlikely and I'd bet on it that it never happened seeing as it's one the least efficient, least likely ways to murder someone. But if it did, we'd prosecute it.

Sperm donation is in no way comparable to kidney donation. Giving someone kidneys doesn't make them pregnant. Also saving a life is different from creating a life.

- - - Updated - - -

Which doesn't mean the constitution is morally correct by default.

There are ways to amend the constitution but it certainly shouldn't be anywhere near as easy as just passing and repealing regular laws..

[Deleted]

Everyone is stealing my popcorn. I have to go back to the store once a day now! At least leave me poptarts in exchange!

Hmm.....
/poptarts....

FYI: Never actually had a poptart so pretty glad to steal yours Genn.

As for OP.
Are those your genuine viewpoints or are you trying to create heated discussion?
I mean forcing parents that give children up for adoption to then pay for the child.
Whilst that's a good idea your essentially going to potentially render them pennyless if they give the kid up for adoption so they'd probs just keep it (which is never a reason to have/keep a child) and then likely just abuse or at least neglect the kid. So that wouldn't work.

[Hraklea]

There are ways to amend the constitution but it certainly shouldn't be anywhere near as easy as just passing and repealing regular laws..

Again, that's irrelevant. If the constitution supported slavery, would you support it and say "well, it sucks to be black"? Or would you recognize that slavery is immoral?

[Deleted]

Again, that's irrelevant. If the constitution supported slavery, would you support it and say "well, it sucks to be black"? Or would you recognize that slavery is immoral?

Dude, that was well over a century ago, give it a rest.

[Hraklea]

Dude, that was well over a century ago, give it a rest.

You're doing the exact same thing with gay rights. "Gays should not marry because of what the constitution says". It is a stupid argument, and the way you're constantly avoiding to answer my arguments only shows that you're aware of your own ignorance.

[Deathquoi]

I wouldn't say you're an MRA or anything like that. You're clearly just a homophobe who wants to prevent gay people from raising children.

[Deleted]

You're doing the exact same thing with gay rights. "Gays should not marry because of what the constitution says". It is a stupid argument, and the way you're constantly avoiding to answer my arguments only shows that you're aware of your own ignorance.

Uh no what I said was there is no basis in the constitution for gay marriage.

i.e. no obligation for the government to formally recognize it (if gay couples wanna live together and fuck, they can already do that, no law against it, don't force the rest of the public to subsidize it that's all)

[Hraklea]

Uh no what I said was there is no basis in the constitution for gay marriage.

i.e. no obligation for the government to formally recognize it...

How the heck is that any different from what I just said?

[Deleted]

i.e. no obligation for the government to formally recognize it

And no obligation for the people to vote for them in x years.
It's the same with sperm donation : majority of people are ok with how it is, you're not, that sucks for you.

LOL.