Wisconsin Legislator: Being a single mother constitutes child abuse

[Doktor Howl]

This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.

That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.

Oh, for sure that is the primary reason.  I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.

Without a doubt.  Also fucks over people who adopt, come to think of it.

IIRC, one of Newt's points on his "contract with America" was to take children from single mothers and put them in orphanages.

Yep.  I was remembering correctly.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/a_look_back_newts_most_outlandish_positions/

[Nephew Twiddleton]

This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.

That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.

Oh, for sure that is the primary reason.  I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.

What's even weirder, is that you can logic that out further to show that divorcees are also excluded.

There are no desirable consequences to such a bill.

Well, unless you're a plutocrat.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.

That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.

Oh, for sure that is the primary reason.  I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.

Without a doubt.  Also fucks over people who adopt, come to think of it.

IIRC, one of Newt's points on his "contract with America" was to take children from single mothers and put them in orphanages.

Yep.  I was remembering correctly.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/a_look_back_newts_most_outlandish_positions/

That fucking guy....

[trippinprincezz13]

This is also an obvious play at making it illegal for gay couples to have kids.

That might be an intended side effect, but I see this as more of another attack on women's reproductive rights as well as cutting evil socialist programs.

Oh, for sure that is the primary reason.  I'm just observing that when they use language like "biological", there is a clear and signaled intent to make sure that gay couples are excluded from the two-parent, government supported system.

What's even weirder, is that you can logic that out further to show that divorcees are also excluded.

There are no desirable consequences to such a bill.

Well, unless you're a plutocrat.

Divorces are also a sin. People should just stay with someone they no longer love, growing more and more bitter until one of them snaps and kills the other one. It's only right.

[Freeky]

If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?

[Doktor Howl]

If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?

I guess they get to starve to death alongside the residents of Wisconsin that RUINED IT FOR EVERYBODY.

It's the American way.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?

Widows are worse than divorcees! Look at them, smiling, living their lives, maybe even remarrying when their poor husbands died for their Freedom! They don't even feel bad about it!

[Doktor Howl]

If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?

Widows are worse than divorcees! Look at them, smiling, living their lives, maybe even remarrying when their poor husbands died for their Freedom! They don't even feel bad about it!

Ann Coulter DID remark that the 911 widows were apparently having a grand old time.

[LMNO]

Goddammit.  I'd forgotten about that.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?

No, they must suffer and be considered child abusers for having God see fit to take them away.

They can never remarry, since those children would never have a biological father again, and have their foodstamps taken away because that's God's will. God's all knowing. It's a test like. Because God wants broken homes and children to be considered abused because some spag fucking got shot in a desert thousands of miles away.

Don't you see how this works, Freeky?

[Freeky]

I'm not sure how I missed it, but I have a thorough perspective now.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

If divorcees are included, then what about widows of soldiers and guys who just up and died suddenly?

I say we should implement Sati here like Krishna intended.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This whole thing translates to "can't get laid; doesn't think of women as human; assumes that women marry for money and not for normal human motivations like love and companionship".

[Deepthroat Chopra]

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but there's too many politicians in your country! Statements from a Wisconsin Senator? How many houses in your state legislatures? I'm assuming two - which would mean there are literally thousands of politicians in America, yeah? With local government powers there, you'd have to include councillors. Our local governments only control roads and rubbish collection (oh, development applications, yeah, the biggest source of corruption in local government), so we can't really count them as politicians.

For all the Republican talk of small government, the monster seems to be getting bigger, wackier, and less intelligent.

Harsh?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but there's too many politicians in your country! Statements from a Wisconsin Senator? How many houses in your state legislatures? I'm assuming two - which would mean there are literally thousands of politicians in America, yeah? With local government powers there, you'd have to include councillors. Our local governments only control roads and rubbish collection (oh, development applications, yeah, the biggest source of corruption in local government), so we can't really count them as politicians.

For all the Republican talk of small government, the monster seems to be getting bigger, wackier, and less intelligent.

Harsh?

I don't think it's the number of politicians that's the problem. With a country as large as this one, both in terms of geography and population, there are naturally more representatives than if the country was half or a quarter the size.

The structure of the government, however, is pretty much utterly fucked.