A Social Worker's Tale
So, my brother works with a chick that's working toward a degree in social work. She says there's talk in Texas (I couldn't verify this with any news stories) of passing a law that will hold the parents of minors who father children responsible for child support. I think grandparental child support holds as much water as a trembling, six-month-old chihuahua, so I'm not sure we have anything to worry about where it concerns this becoming law. But it brought up some issues. The future (desperately poor) social worker writes papers on some controversial social issues, so she always polls her co-workers to get opinions. The majority female opinion on this particular issue was the standard "It's about time the men are held responsible! Women have been forced to take care of kids by themselves for ages!" First of all, bullshit OK? Child support laws work pretty damned well as far as I'm concerned. And I'm concerned.
My mom has been collecting child support for years, and the time that my dad was out of work and we collected welfare from the state has not been forgotten. My dad's paying that money back. That's right, the state wants my dad to PAY BACK welfare, and part of that plan requires that a portion of the money he pays in child support be earmarked toward the reduction of that debt. If a man spends time in jail for not paying child support (during which time he is not earning any money, and therefore can't pay child support), he gets in trouble for not paying child support, which gets his license taken away, which makes it difficult for him to pay child support, ad nauseum. And child support law needs changes? It doesn't work? My dad doesn't even get tax returns! It goes straight to his debt, and rightly so.
Second of all, I'm in complete disbelief that women would support a law that would require the grandparents of her child to pay child support. Holy. Crap. Do women have rights? Do rights not carry any responsibilities to others? Are your rights more important than mine? If so, who made that decision? Take abortion for instance. Why is it that a woman has the right to choose whether her baby comes into the world, but the father doesn't? The next 18 years of my life are going to be decided by a woman I had a one-nighter with? I can't believe we live in a country where that's possible. "Oh, but it's her body, not yours." Yeah, well she CHOSE to give someone her body for that one fleeting moment, so the CHOICE was made. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit if you think you are within your rights to make a decision by yourself that will severely affect another person of sound mind. Our rights under our republican constitution are our rights based on the simple fact that we are human; sex has nothing to do with it. If women can get abortions, then the law should say that the man has the right to choose as well. If he chooses abortion and she chooses to keep the baby, then he shouldn't be held responsible for supporting the little monkey. "That's ridiculous!" you say? I agree, so let's just outlaw abortion and that way everyone has equal rights.
I'm amazed that the same people that fight for abortion rights are fighting for equal rights for homosexuals. I agree that homos should have equal rights; after all, they are human. But how could you support a "right" that takes someone else's rights away and then, with a straight face, argue that everyone should have equal rights? Silly liberals, rights are for republicans; you just don't know what to do with them.
And speaking of homos…will someone please explain to me what makes them less human? I believe that homosexuality is a choice. You know why? Because you could live 100 years without having sex; it won't kill you. See, I made a CHOICE to marry a woman. I could have stayed single and/or been celibate for the rest of my life, but I didn't want to. I am within my right to the pursuit of happiness to marry a woman. So, why am I not allowed to pursue happiness if I want to marry a man? The mistake the religious right (fake republicans) makes is assuming that the constitution is a Christian document. It isn't. When did the right to the pursuit of happiness become a Christian ideal? Christianity is all about self-denial, and that is evident in the life of Jesus Christ who "…became poor on our account…" The pursuit of personal happiness is decadent. It is so rich in sinful possibility as to lead to complete degeneracy and depravity. And a true republican will support that right to the death, even if it means allowing men to marry men or whack off to women pooping or slather down a rake handle with mayo and stick it where el sol don't shine. The only limit to the pursuit of happiness is where it crosses over the rights of others or extends past the boundaries of the law. For instance, the law says you can't have sex with animals, the reason being that they can't consent to it, among others. So, sorry, but you'll have to pursue your happiness at horsepenis.com and hope they don't shut the site down. The law allows the KKK to march on Washington, but a queer who's been with his podner for 15 years can't keep the house when said podner dies because the parents he hasn't talked to in 20 years want to sell it and give the money to Jimmy Swaggart. God save the queen.
My mom has been collecting child support for years, and the time that my dad was out of work and we collected welfare from the state has not been forgotten. My dad's paying that money back. That's right, the state wants my dad to PAY BACK welfare, and part of that plan requires that a portion of the money he pays in child support be earmarked toward the reduction of that debt. If a man spends time in jail for not paying child support (during which time he is not earning any money, and therefore can't pay child support), he gets in trouble for not paying child support, which gets his license taken away, which makes it difficult for him to pay child support, ad nauseum. And child support law needs changes? It doesn't work? My dad doesn't even get tax returns! It goes straight to his debt, and rightly so.
Second of all, I'm in complete disbelief that women would support a law that would require the grandparents of her child to pay child support. Holy. Crap. Do women have rights? Do rights not carry any responsibilities to others? Are your rights more important than mine? If so, who made that decision? Take abortion for instance. Why is it that a woman has the right to choose whether her baby comes into the world, but the father doesn't? The next 18 years of my life are going to be decided by a woman I had a one-nighter with? I can't believe we live in a country where that's possible. "Oh, but it's her body, not yours." Yeah, well she CHOSE to give someone her body for that one fleeting moment, so the CHOICE was made. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit if you think you are within your rights to make a decision by yourself that will severely affect another person of sound mind. Our rights under our republican constitution are our rights based on the simple fact that we are human; sex has nothing to do with it. If women can get abortions, then the law should say that the man has the right to choose as well. If he chooses abortion and she chooses to keep the baby, then he shouldn't be held responsible for supporting the little monkey. "That's ridiculous!" you say? I agree, so let's just outlaw abortion and that way everyone has equal rights.
I'm amazed that the same people that fight for abortion rights are fighting for equal rights for homosexuals. I agree that homos should have equal rights; after all, they are human. But how could you support a "right" that takes someone else's rights away and then, with a straight face, argue that everyone should have equal rights? Silly liberals, rights are for republicans; you just don't know what to do with them.
And speaking of homos…will someone please explain to me what makes them less human? I believe that homosexuality is a choice. You know why? Because you could live 100 years without having sex; it won't kill you. See, I made a CHOICE to marry a woman. I could have stayed single and/or been celibate for the rest of my life, but I didn't want to. I am within my right to the pursuit of happiness to marry a woman. So, why am I not allowed to pursue happiness if I want to marry a man? The mistake the religious right (fake republicans) makes is assuming that the constitution is a Christian document. It isn't. When did the right to the pursuit of happiness become a Christian ideal? Christianity is all about self-denial, and that is evident in the life of Jesus Christ who "…became poor on our account…" The pursuit of personal happiness is decadent. It is so rich in sinful possibility as to lead to complete degeneracy and depravity. And a true republican will support that right to the death, even if it means allowing men to marry men or whack off to women pooping or slather down a rake handle with mayo and stick it where el sol don't shine. The only limit to the pursuit of happiness is where it crosses over the rights of others or extends past the boundaries of the law. For instance, the law says you can't have sex with animals, the reason being that they can't consent to it, among others. So, sorry, but you'll have to pursue your happiness at horsepenis.com and hope they don't shut the site down. The law allows the KKK to march on Washington, but a queer who's been with his podner for 15 years can't keep the house when said podner dies because the parents he hasn't talked to in 20 years want to sell it and give the money to Jimmy Swaggart. God save the queen.
posted by Mitch/Mike at 10/25/2005 11:35:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home