Justices Thomas and Alito and same-sex marriage

[Deleted]

So we're going to turn back the clock? And now SCOTUS final say-so won't be the final say-so anymore. Along with the possibly not-so-final say-so on abortion, we'll get the not-so-final say-so on same-sex marriage. 

Is it going to be SCOTUS practice that whenever the balance of conservative/liberal justices changes, there will be a look-back to see what can be changed that's no longer "popular"?


link

[oped]

Except it is popular. And like, except that’s not how this shit should work anyway but whatever.

They really want to destroy all the institutions of the republic.

[TheOtherMe]

Those two dissents are abominable.  I hope that my gay friends and family will not have to see that decision overturned.

[thyme4change]

[busymom]

It has always been that the Supreme Court set up the precedent.  There were no "do-overs".  When a decision was made by the Supreme Court, love it or hate it, it was the rule.


I don't like the potential that the Supreme Court will be turning wishy-washy, and revisiting old problems, based on whatever political party is in control of the White House and Congress.  Do we really want to go back to the old days, where women couldn't get credit without her husband's or father's signature?  Do we want to go further back in history & revisit slavery?  How about prohibition?  This is just such a slippery slope that they're attempting to play with.  Once an issue is settled, we need to leave it, and move on.  

[pulmonarymd]

This will devolve into where you live. Abortion and same sex marriage will be legal in blue states and not in red states. Will be interesting to see what it does to population trends.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law.  If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only.  No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife".   No protections come with getting married, NONE.   Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.

Can't see these so called Christians agreeing with their marital perks being taken away from them in the name of equality under the law.

So tired of this shit.

[billisonboard]

Oct 6, 2020 9:36:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

This will devolve into where you live. Abortion and same sex marriage will be legal in blue states and not in red states. Will be interesting to see what it does to population trends.

Here is the tricky part with marriage:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

My marriage to a non-same sex person is recognized in all fifty states based on this clause. A state might not allow you to get married in their state but if you marry in a state that does, the other state has to accept you as married.

[justme]

Oct 6, 2020 9:50:10 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law.  If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only.  No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife".   No protections come with getting married, NONE.   Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.

Can't see these so called Christians agreeing with their marital perks being taken away from them in the name of equality under the law.

So tired of this shit.

Yeah, but if you ask the people who are all "well gay people can have a civil union" if they're cool with the government sending them a letter that says your marriage certificate is now null and void - here is your civil union certificate it's a big no I'm married. Then ask them with big wide eyes - what's the difference if a civil union is the same thing?

I forget which one - but I believe at least one country over in Europe is like that. You have to go to a court house or something to sign legal part and any religious part is separate of that. 

[thyme4change]

I am for abolishing marriage. I think it should be a contract where you have to sign every item to acknowledge that you understand what you are giving to this person. And, that contract can be entered by any two people. If I want my brother to inherit all my money and make all my medical decisions, then I can enter that contract. The contract you sign will also have an escape clause, which theoretically take some of the fighting out of divorces.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 6, 2020 9:50:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 6, 2020 9:36:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

This will devolve into where you live. Abortion and same sex marriage will be legal in blue states and not in red states. Will be interesting to see what it does to population trends.

Here is the tricky part with marriage:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

My marriage to a non-same sex person is recognized in all fifty states based on this clause. A state might not allow you to get married in their state but if you marry in a state that does, the other state has to accept you as married.

Interesting, isn't it. We will see if conservatives are strict constitutionalists when it comes to that clause. I suspect they only are with the parts they agree with.

[justme]

Oct 6, 2020 10:29:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 6, 2020 9:50:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is the tricky part with marriage:

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

My marriage to a non-same sex person is recognized in all fifty states based on this clause. A state might not allow you to get married in their state but if you marry in a state that does, the other state has to accept you as married.

Interesting, isn't it. We will see if conservatives are strict constitutionalists when it comes to that clause. I suspect they only are with the parts they agree with.

That's why they were pushing so hard to get it a federal law that outlawed it. They needed to keep smaller states from recognizing it. Remember the fight in Cali? One of the bluest states we have yet it was into a court fight to stop same sex marriage there. 

[sesfw]

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 6, 2020 11:07:37 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

Glad you find this funny. It takes 2 people to have a child. So, unless all these women were forced to have a baby by these men you have created, they chose just as poorly. Maybe people need a license before they can reproduce.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

And an argument against gay marriage is that two women or two men cannot "naturally" bear children so therefore there is no need to grant them the right to get married.

[Deleted]

Does either party really want to debate this anymore? I thought for the most part the GOP stopped making it a wedge issue after 04.

Thomas and Alito are relics from the time the GOP was crusading against gay people while at least one GOP Senator was tapping his foot in a Minneapolis airport restroom stall.

[justme]

Oct 6, 2020 11:07:37 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

Considering there's this thing called divorce and it happens frequently - it would make WAY more sense that if your goal is to ensure that children are provided for is to create much stronger child support laws. Men can skimp out on paying for their children because the laws LET THEM. And husbands take off and become nothing more than sperm donors ALL THE TIME.

So instead of this inane fight over marriage which solves NOTHING because fathers can still leave even if they're married -- lets start creating laws that hold men accountable to provide for their children. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Gotta keep appeasing that evangelical base. 

[Rukh O'Rorke]

Oct 6, 2020 11:07:37 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

no thank you.

Plenty of successful single mother families, even just here on this board - there are a lot of us.

It's silly to make these pretenses about marriage, when many wonderful marriages end with the untimely early death of one of the partners, frequently with children involved, and the other goes on to have a fulfilling life, even if raising children on their own.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Oct 6, 2020 11:40:36 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:07:37 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

Considering there's this thing called divorce and it happens frequently - it would make WAY more sense that if your goal is to ensure that children are provided for is to create much stronger child support laws. Men can skimp out on paying for their children because the laws LET THEM. And husbands take off and become nothing more than sperm donors ALL THE TIME.

So instead of this inane fight over marriage which solves NOTHING because fathers can still leave even if they're married -- lets start creating laws that hold men accountable to provide for their children. 

And provide BC either over the counter or free, demand that male birth control be on the market (despite it having "side effects" like those of the pill. Boo hoo) and change societal attitudes that is it woman's and only the woman's job to keep her legs closed.

Yeah not happening.  

[thyme4change]

Oct 6, 2020 11:36:34 GMT -5 @aj said:

Does either party really want to debate this anymore? I thought for the most part the GOP stopped making it a wedge issue after 04.

Thomas and Alito are relics from the time the GOP was crusading against gay people while at least one GOP Senator was tapping his foot in a Minneapolis airport restroom stall.

A lot of people use the "it should have been done via legislation vs the courts" route.

Well, so should have segregation, but a bunch of assholes decided to do the opposite, so the courts had to slap them down. And now, the court has the opportunity to reward all the homophobes and control freaks. So, yes, i am a progressive, because regression is sad and mean.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2020 11:36:34 GMT -5 @aj said:

Does either party really want to debate this anymore? I thought for the most part the GOP stopped making it a wedge issue after 04.

Thomas and Alito are relics from the time the GOP was crusading against gay people while at least one GOP Senator was tapping his foot in a Minneapolis airport restroom stall.

Thomas and Alito have been crusading against LGBTQ people at least up to June of 2020 with the support of president trump and William Barr.  Gotta' please those evangelical and other trump supporters be they businesses or individuals.

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees
June 15, 202010:19 AM ET

In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"Today," Gorsuch said, "we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear." He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.

The decision is a huge victory for the LGBTQ community and a major loss for the Trump administration, which had sided with employers in three cases before the court.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: "They've ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court." He called the opinion "very powerful."

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees


Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees
August, 2019

With an amicus brief filed on Friday, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to essentially legalize anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

The Justice Department’s arguments pertain to the employment protections offered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are being argued in two Supreme Court cases involving gay workers in October. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin.

But it does not, the Justice Department says, cover sexuality.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department submitted another brief asking the Justices to conclude that Title VII does not protect transgender people from employer discrimination.

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

[Deleted]

Oct 6, 2020 12:39:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:36:34 GMT -5 @aj said:

Does either party really want to debate this anymore? I thought for the most part the GOP stopped making it a wedge issue after 04.

Thomas and Alito are relics from the time the GOP was crusading against gay people while at least one GOP Senator was tapping his foot in a Minneapolis airport restroom stall.

Thomas and Alito have been crusading against LGBTQ people at least up to June of 2020 with the support of president trump and William Barr.  Gotta' please those evangelical and other trump supporters be they businesses or individuals.

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees
June 15, 202010:19 AM ET

In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"Today," Gorsuch said, "we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear." He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.

The decision is a huge victory for the LGBTQ community and a major loss for the Trump administration, which had sided with employers in three cases before the court.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: "They've ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court." He called the opinion "very powerful."

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees


Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees
August, 2019

With an amicus brief filed on Friday, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to essentially legalize anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

The Justice Department’s arguments pertain to the employment protections offered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are being argued in two Supreme Court cases involving gay workers in October. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin.

But it does not, the Justice Department says, cover sexuality.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department submitted another brief asking the Justices to conclude that Title VII does not protect transgender people from employer discrimination.

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

The GOP really did become the party of Trump at every level. Talk about setting back the clock on social issues a decade or more.

Sad......

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2020 12:42:28 GMT -5 @aj said:

Oct 6, 2020 12:39:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Thomas and Alito have been crusading against LGBTQ people at least up to June of 2020 with the support of president trump and William Barr.  Gotta' please those evangelical and other trump supporters be they businesses or individuals.

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees
June 15, 202010:19 AM ET

In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"Today," Gorsuch said, "we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear." He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.

The decision is a huge victory for the LGBTQ community and a major loss for the Trump administration, which had sided with employers in three cases before the court.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: "They've ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court." He called the opinion "very powerful."

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees


Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees
August, 2019

With an amicus brief filed on Friday, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to essentially legalize anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

The Justice Department’s arguments pertain to the employment protections offered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are being argued in two Supreme Court cases involving gay workers in October. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin.

But it does not, the Justice Department says, cover sexuality.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department submitted another brief asking the Justices to conclude that Title VII does not protect transgender people from employer discrimination.

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

The GOP really did become the party of Trump at every level. Talk about setting back the clock on social issues a decade or more.

Sad......

I wonder why trump hasn't told his followers this regarding Roe vs. Wade too (from the link I posted the above) : "Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: "They've ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court." He called the opinion "very powerful.""

[weltschmerz]

Oct 6, 2020 11:42:01 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:40:36 GMT -5 justme said:

Considering there's this thing called divorce and it happens frequently - it would make WAY more sense that if your goal is to ensure that children are provided for is to create much stronger child support laws. Men can skimp out on paying for their children because the laws LET THEM. And husbands take off and become nothing more than sperm donors ALL THE TIME.

So instead of this inane fight over marriage which solves NOTHING because fathers can still leave even if they're married -- lets start creating laws that hold men accountable to provide for their children. 

And provide BC either over the counter or free, demand that male birth control be on the market (despite it having "side effects" like those of the pill. Boo hoo) and change societal attitudes that is it woman's and only the woman's job to keep her legs closed.

Yeah not happening.  

Evidently,men are not willing to put up with side-effects of BC, even though women have  been doing it for decades. Pussies.


www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects

[justme]

Oct 6, 2020 11:57:19 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:36:34 GMT -5 @aj said:

Does either party really want to debate this anymore? I thought for the most part the GOP stopped making it a wedge issue after 04.

Thomas and Alito are relics from the time the GOP was crusading against gay people while at least one GOP Senator was tapping his foot in a Minneapolis airport restroom stall.

A lot of people use the "it should have been done via legislation vs the courts" route.

Well, so should have segregation, but a bunch of assholes decided to do the opposite, so the courts had to slap them down. And now, the court has the opportunity to reward all the homophobes and control freaks. So, yes, i am a progressive, because regression is sad and mean.

So many forget that the court is essentially there to bitch slap the president or congress when they fuck up. Not to further the president or congress plan. 

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 6, 2020 13:31:35 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:42:01 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

And provide BC either over the counter or free, demand that male birth control be on the market (despite it having "side effects" like those of the pill. Boo hoo) and change societal attitudes that is it woman's and only the woman's job to keep her legs closed.

Yeah not happening.  

Evidently,men are not willing to put up with side-effects of BC, even though women have  been doing it for decades. Pussies.


www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects

Nice meme, but not that simple. Interfering with ovulation means only 1(on occasion 2) eggs need to be stopped. Need to interfere with millions of sperm, even if it reduces sperm count by 90%, millions of sperm are still expelled in an ejaculate, and could lead to pregnancy. And, just like men are told, why trust someone who tells you they are on the pill, as a women, in a new(or not so new) relationship, are you willing to take the risk. The physical dangers of pregnancy are significant for a women, so I know it would require some sort of commitment to trust. 

[weltschmerz]

Oct 6, 2020 13:38:27 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 6, 2020 13:31:35 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Evidently,men are not willing to put up with side-effects of BC, even though women have  been doing it for decades. Pussies.


www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects

Nice meme, but not that simple. Interfering with ovulation means only 1(on occasion 2) eggs need to be stopped. Need to interfere with millions of sperm, even if it reduces sperm count by 90%, millions of sperm are still expelled in an ejaculate, and could lead to pregnancy. And, just like men are told, why trust someone who tells you they are on the pill, as a women, in a new(or not so new) relationship, are you willing to take the risk. The physical dangers of pregnancy are significant for a women, so I know it would require some sort of commitment to trust. 

Yeah, many won't even wear condoms, never mind taking pills or injections.

Non-consensual condom removal, or "stealthing", is the practice of a man covertly removing or damaging a condom during sexual intercourse, when his sex partner has only consented to condom-protected sex.[1][2] Such behaviour may be regarded as sexual assault or rape and is a form of reproductive coercion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal#:~:text=Non%2Dconsensual%20condom%20removal%2C%20or,a%20form%20of%20reproductive%20coercion.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 6, 2020 13:58:02 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 6, 2020 13:38:27 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Nice meme, but not that simple. Interfering with ovulation means only 1(on occasion 2) eggs need to be stopped. Need to interfere with millions of sperm, even if it reduces sperm count by 90%, millions of sperm are still expelled in an ejaculate, and could lead to pregnancy. And, just like men are told, why trust someone who tells you they are on the pill, as a women, in a new(or not so new) relationship, are you willing to take the risk. The physical dangers of pregnancy are significant for a women, so I know it would require some sort of commitment to trust. 

Yeah, many won't even wear condoms, never mind taking pills or injections.

Non-consensual condom removal, or "stealthing", is the practice of a man covertly removing or damaging a condom during sexual intercourse, when his sex partner has only consented to condom-protected sex.[1][2] Such behaviour may be regarded as sexual assault or rape and is a form of reproductive coercion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal#:~:text=Non%2Dconsensual%20condom%20removal%2C%20or,a%20form%20of%20reproductive%20coercion.

And women stop their oral contraceptives without telling there partner. Neither side is pure in this. There are a large number of responsible men who take this seriously, and would be willing to take male contraceptives. But in the absence of a reliable male contraceptive, the options are limited. And again, when men complain about a woman fooling them and getting pregnant, the retort is they should have protected themselves. Is that the same answer women would get if the situation were reversed?

[jerseygirl]

I worked for a pharma company that was one of first to have female oral contraceptives and went on to implants. Significant research was done for a male contraceptive drug but was stopped before sending for approval primarily because it was thought market wasn’t sufficient to profit. An obstacle was women not in control and not trusting male.