Some conservatives want to make it a lot harder to dissolve a marriage.
  • InvisibleHat@lemmy.mlEnglish
    137·
    5 months ago
    1. Ban abortion
    2. Ban divorce
    3. Lower marriage age to 12.
    4. You can now have a child sex slave, thank Jesus! God bless all.

    I think this is the Christian plan for marriage and for childhood for females.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    75·
    5 months ago

    Conservatives have bad ideas about nearly everything. They should under no circumstances be allowed to have any power. I’d even say they’re an existential threat to the US and the rest of humanity.

    It’s far past time to stop treating them as just folks with a different opinion. This is not “oh well they wanted to paint the bedroom walls green and I wanted blue.”

    Someone announcing themselves a conservative should be taken as a declaration of a threat. Removing them from power is self defense.

    • sparkle@lemm.eeCymraeg
      4·
      5 months ago

      I agree with what you’re getting at, but “conservative” is relative and doesn’t actually indicate specific beliefs, so “conservatives should never have any power” can be easily twisted once the conservatives we’d currently think of are gone.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        5·
        5 months ago

        What word would you prefer? I considered “Republicans” but that doesn’t catch people outside the US. “Contemporary Republicans or people who would vote for them” isn’t very catchy

        • sparkle@lemm.eeCymraeg
          2·
          5 months ago

          I don’t think there’s an all-encompassing term for people who have “destructive”/harmful beliefs considered conservative. Most I can think of is “bigoted capitalists”, but even “bigoted” could be interpreted way differently. Plus, that excludes bigoted non-capitalists so it has a more narrow usage…

          What I go with, though, is “fascists” and “collaborators”. Plain and simple, straight to the point, but most importantly no chance of confusion – that’s how I see our conservatives, their supporters, and their enablers. Ultra-socially-regressives (usually religious) who want a system that enforces/maintains a social hierarchy they deem “natural” (or having a religious justification for the hierarchy). Maybe “wannabe fascists” or “social fascists” would be more accurate, since generally people think of a dictatorship when they think of “fascism”.

          “Oppressors” may also work, and it also can pair with “collaborators”. It’s more general, but I think here the flexibility may come be an advantage, and it isn’t tied to a specific set of political beliefs, it vaguely just means “those who use unjust force/threats of force to control others”. Of course, contemporary conservatives follow this definition.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      45·
      5 months ago

      Yep. At the very least, just make everything a civil union that any two consenting adults can enter into. Religious people can still get “married”, it just has nothing to do with the government.

      • sparkle@lemm.eeCymraeg
        4·
        5 months ago

        Why limit it to two? I say allow any amount of people in a civil union, or allow one person to have a civil union with multiple people separately. It’s mostly for visits in the hospital, parental rights, stuff like that.

        Of course, that makes residence/citizenship based on relationships complicated, but that’s mostly an issue caused by closed national borders being a fucked up concept in the first place.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          1·
          5 months ago

          I don’t disagree, that’s just a much more involved change. I was just suggesting the bare minimum that would be relatively simple to implement.

    • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      5 months ago

      Maybe they should make it super bureaucratic and you have to pay to renew your civil union every 7 years, otherwise it dissolves.

  • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    26·
    5 months ago

    They want laws that follow ancient religious texts, to control women, force everyone into marriage, prosecute homosexuals, ban birth control and get rid of media that go against their narrative.

    What I’m wondering is, why the fuck do they not like Islamists?

    • dumblederp@lemmy.world
      5·
      5 months ago

      Most religions feel that anyone not in their religion is beneath them, or a lesser person. Believers are going to heaven, well meaning pious atheists are going to burn in hell.

      • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 months ago

        The really bonkers ones get even more exclusive, where other Christians that aren’t their same little sect are going to hell, even Catholics.

    • cristo@lemmy.worldEsperanto
      3·
      5 months ago

      Because a different guy a few hundred years later said some of the same stuff while also saying some different stuff.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      I think they largely do envy them and their social control and want the same, just for their religious beliefs instead.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    21·
    5 months ago

    Why not? They live with an abusive god who constantly threatens them with punishment if they don’t follow a bunch of conflicting rules and won’t love you or reward you unless you kiss his ass. You can never leave the relationship or check out any other gods, or just be single, either. You’re trapped.

    They want everyone else to be trapped in abusive relationships, too.

  • dumples@midwest.socialEnglish
    16·
    5 months ago

    Seems like the Republicans core voting block are men too terrible to be with unless you are forced to by the state. Winning strategy

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    11·
    5 months ago

    Next up, mandatory marriage? Like if you’re single past age twenty one or so, you’re criminally charged? Maybe sent as cannon fodder in the colonies?

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    10·
    5 months ago

    Of course they are. The men and I use that term loosely are trying to make women chattel again. The next step for them after that is to make other chattel. They dream of the mid east style government.