• Flying Squid
    link
    71 year ago

    It’s pretty damn unthinkable when it excludes most gay people.

    • Dissasterix
      link
      -61 year ago

      True, but it also disquifies the incels. Probably balanced ;]

      • Flying Squid
        link
        31 year ago

        No. No it is not balanced. It is a blatant attack on gay people by a bigot.

        • Dissasterix
          link
          -31 year ago

          Theres a lot of people that dont have kids. Theres a lot of kids looking for adoption… If the law is applied evenly then I see no conflict.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            31 year ago

            There’s a lot of people who shouldn’t be parents. Maybe we shouldn’t encourage child abuse. Just a thought.

            • Dissasterix
              link
              -21 year ago

              Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn’t happen, but I think it’ll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).

              • Flying Squid
                link
                31 year ago

                but I think it’ll be happen less than more

                Oh good, as long as it’s only some child abuse…

                • Dissasterix
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it’ll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    31 year ago

                    Wow. Are you really ‘game theorying’ child abuse?