• Carvex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Loving home with two dads? Never! Throw the kid back in the orphanage, fuck that little bastard.

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I mean it makes sense. India has so few children available for adoption that it wouldn’t be fair to the normal couples.

    Edit: Fucking wooosh you people. It’s pretty sad you guys couldn’t see the obvious sarcasm in my comment.

    1. India is drowning in orphan kids
    2. “Normal” obviously is what the lawmakers were thinking, that was the joke.

    This isn’t Reddit, I shouldn’t need to put /s on everything, jeez.

        • subignition@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I sooner expected that it was some racist dogwhistle that I hadn’t learned of yet, yeah. When you have learned to disengage quickly at the early vibes of bad faith trolls, it can be hard for unmarked sarcasm and satire to make the cut. Poe’s law and all.

      • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Think about all the good heterosexual couples who won’t be able to adopt.

        Next thing you’ll be asking for equal educational opportunities for lower castes, and if there’s not enough books to go around then we know who deserves an education.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Not everyone is good at detecting sarcasm, especially not on the internet where people say what you said in all seriousness.

      Tone indicators like /s are precisely there because there is no tone over text, to prevent misunderstanding.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      “It woudnt be fair towards some couples if other couples were not excluded”

      Why does the gender of the parent matter at all in the case of adoption?

      Kid should go to the family best able to provide for love and good health. The primary reason adoption exists is cause kids need a home, not just couples wanting a child.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hurrumph to everything in your edit. That was so blatantly obvious that I suspect people are just roaming around looking for an opportunity to argue.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      You say that as if it’s objectively worse to have two parents of the same gender than two of the opposite gender.

    • Five@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      A five-judge Constitution bench of the top court on Tuesday unanimously refused to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, ruling that it is within the Parliament’s ambit to change the law for validating such a union.

      Writing a 247-page separate judgement, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud struck down Regulation 5(3) of the CARA, saying it is violative of the rights of the queer community and that the CARA has exceeded its authority in barring unmarried couples from adopting children.

      The five-judge bench, however, passed a 3:2 verdict against adoption rights for the LGBTQIA++ community.

      I have no idea how the SC of India works. Do these articles contradict each other, or are they blind people describing different parts of the same elephant?

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        The verdict u linked was majority one. The verdict the commentator linked was the minority one.

        The same-sex marriage petition was rejected based on a 3-2 bench.