On gay marriage and children

So, I've seen many liberals support that gay couples should be able to adopt children.
While I think the nuclear family is nothing more than capitalism's form of family and can/should be subject to change in socialism, it doesn't sit well with me that children should grow up with people of the same sex.
What's your opinion and if I'm wrong why is that?

Attached: 1456882888235.jpg (618x349, 37.35K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02b.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Considdering you havn't made an argument against it, and it just "doesn't sit well" is maybe a good indicator that you're spooked as fuck.
What about kids growing up with a single parent? How does that sit?

Tbh I see no issue with it, better children get gay parents who give a shit rather than be stuck with some abusive drunkard fuck or worse, stuck in the shite-tier foster system.
Though, unironically bring back the extended family/ DDR tier daycare systems.

This is a disadvantage of our current family model.
It doesn't sit well either but any other action, say taking away children from single parents is way worse.

Is that it? Dude, where's your argument?

Well, tbh I'm with the status quo here. I'd expect people who are for this change to make an argument.

Don't have time to get into it but as Communists we wish for the abolition of the Nuclear Family, (there are some good Engels quotes in this thread, read Origin of the Family for more information) insofar as we see it as a product of Capitalist Social Relations. It is unclear what will emerge as the replacement for such, with many arguing for a return to an Extended family as normative whilst others still argue for a more communal understanding of family, whatever does emerge in the abscence of Property Relations as they exist now, it would surely afford individuals the freedom to arrainge their way of life in the mode they wish to. Now, how this relates to the question of Adoption poses some interesting questions. Under Capitalism Adoption functions as an option to provide children that through some circumstance or other the opportunity to become part of a different family as opposed to the state/their biological parents. Under Socialism the argument could be made that not only will there be less children available for adoption given that not only will couples who are pregnant have the provision to have the children that they wish to, but that with advances in sexual education & reproductive rights there will be less need for it as a whole, but also, if the familial structures that emerge are close to either extended or communal structures, the modes of living that LGBT couples adopt wouldn't even neccessitate them have to take children specifically under their care since they will likely have responsibilites in raising the children of their own families & communities. Really, we also need to assess the fundamental legal structure of what adoption is and whether it is restricted to a contract under Capitalism and if it is even relevant to Communism. All this being said, whilst you thinking about these things isn't invalid, I worry that you don't really have any logical reason for pursuing this as
said. Perhaps you could explain more about what seems "wrong" about this arraingment and how it pertains to LGBT people specifically, and bear in mind that Socialism would solve any concerns you have about children not having positive influences of different orientations & genders given that the Nuclear Family won't exist as a private institution.

The status quo is not a proper appeal for communists… You're the one who made the fucking thread.

I'm not a strong supporter of my position, this thread is for actually hearing what other people think.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine about why KKE (communist party of greece) voted against the civil partnership.
KKE wrote in their newspaper that they doesn't see gay marriage adoption as biologically appropriate for the child. They think that children need both a male and a female role model for them to grow with a healthy phycology.

I'm this guy, which change are you talking about? Giving the right to LGBT couples under Capitalism to adopt? Because that already exists in a significant portion of the 1st World, and attitudes towards such are rapidly changing as society learns to decouple sexual orientation from religious, social & otherwise restrictions and taboos. I'm interested in why you have an aversion to this specifically as opposed to adoption claims being evaluated on the ability of those to provide the child with good care, financially, emotionally etc. The adoption & foster care system is deeply flawed under current society and results in incredibly damaged individuals either through abuse by the state, opportunistic foster carers who just want government cheques and the general psychological problems that come with being a child without any real sense of belonging in an already incredibly atomized society. Surely, just on a basic ethical level, if you seemingly value children being cared for by those who would love them, you would prefer they were taken in by anyone rather than left to rot under the state or neglectful fosterers. Do you know any children who have been through the care system? I feel like you don't otherwise you wouldn't be approaching the issue from this angle.

(me)
(me)
Thanks for clarifying, comrade. I didn't know about this, as a Greekanon could you provide more background info into the situation? There was a bill for civil partnership and a Greek Communist Party voted against it? What does this exactly have to do with adoption?

I do know people who have grown up in foster homes, however I don't think my personal experience can give me an objective view.


The problem is the newspaper is in Greek, I'll try to translate what I think are the important parts.

Notice how all the capitalists support homosexuality.

Absolutely, but are we looking for an objective view here? I think your experience knowing people growing up in foster care would give you a broader understanding of the issue on a personal level, which is part of your thread right?

There are a few problems with the stance taken by KKE I can imagine on a surface level, but thank you for taking the time to translate, that'll give us more reference.

This is the start of the article, I will translate more of it in a while.

The family is a social relationship, it is an institution of child protection, as it was shaped in today's society, capitalism. We also believe that political marriage must be the only mandatory form of marriage. And whoever wants, let him also have the right of the corresponding religious ceremony.

But this bourgeois modernization that has been done in other countries for years, you do not touch. If the government wanted to establish a less "bureaucratic" political marriage, it could propose the necessary amendments under the Civil Code.

There is no need for two legal arrangements (civil marriage and civil partnership) for rights and obligations between wedded, whose core is the reproduction, upbringing and education of children.

When the civil partnership was introduced in 2008 only for heterosexual couples, the KKE had highlighted that the real goal is not to make a more relaxed form of marriage but to legally legislate on the institutionalization of homosexual couples and adoption of children.

The conviction of Greece by the European Court of Justice, cited by the Government and the Explanatory Report, did not concern a violation of any positive obligation imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights. But it concerned negative discrimination against homosexual couples in the context of the institutionalization of the Coexistence Pact. If there was no cohabitation agreement for heterosexual couples, there would not be a question of condemning Greece.

The goal through the bill is essentially the institutional recognition of the family of homosexual couples, including - in a course - and the acquisition of children from them. And there is our own disagreement.

I want straightfags to stop fucking breeding and start adopting if they actually give a rats arse about children they aren't spooked to hell and back about being their genes or whatever.
Once there are no children without someone to care for them to speak of we can start discussing the optimal arrangements for parenting, till then fuck right off.

Attached: don't deserve hello.jpg (617x464, 48.81K)

I believe in my vulgar-freudian wisdom that a child should have at least a male and a female person of reference for an early understanding of the sexes. Good luck with women without a mother figure in your childhood.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with this in an abstract sense, that multiple role models that are different are neccessary for the socialization & development of children, what we contend is the assertion that LGBT couples must neccessarily be excluded from such on those grounds because without even debating any of the moral or ethical questions, not only as communists do we not care for the legal institutions of marriage/civil partnership and the property rights afforded within but also the social institution of the Nuclear Family as the emergent dominant mode under Capitalism; we foresee a future shaped by Communist Social Relations neccessarily moulding the Family into a different structure, but, even in Society as it exists now, the argument against LGBT peoples having children along such grounds is incoherent as it extends to multiple other groups (single parent families, foster homes, state care facilities) and also even LGBT individuals themselves with their own biological children under some kind of Private arraingement such as surrogacy (for example, Man A & B are partners, Man B has a sister who agrees to surrogacy of Man As child, as such both Man A & B are biologically related to the child) Bit of a strange example but the precedent exists (difficult to get strangers to be surrogates without a lot of money) and it's not like this is incestuous, if anything it's spooked to be averse to this but one might argue at this point adoption would just be more efficient, or alternatively, having 3 closely related role models would be more beneficial to the child's development as is often also the case with extended families including older siblings/uncles/aunts/grandparents/cousins

I can tell you what KKE stance is to homos getting children
Is "are average voter is 100+ and we should not give him a heart attack cause then we will stop getting 7000 per month"

...

your personal pathologies aren't the subject of this board, faggot

Yeah because being an edgy retard on Zig Forums is way more conducive to convinving a comrade who is on the fence about an issue that actually has real world relavance to the communist movement in his country doesn't it?

Source?

(cont.)
In our opinion, the goal of the draft bill brought by the government is neither the protection of the basic rights of those who have a homosexual sexual orientation, that is respected. As KKE, we stand against those who practice stigmatization and discrimination against them. We have voted, over the years, provisions that have come to Parliament to tighten such behavior, and of course we are not indifferent to a number of issues that have been raised concerning Living, Health and Insurance.We have voted, over the years, provisions that have come to Parliament to tighten such behavior, and of course we are not indifferent to a number of issues that have been raised concerning Living, Health and Insurance.

We ask the following simple question: Those who have chosen a particular sexual orientation or have chosen a form of cohabitation - which you say that you are defending them through this bill - are excluded from the attack you have unleashed on labor-popular rights? No. The vast majority of these people also suffer and suffer the consequences of this policy, just like the rest of the people.

There is, then, hypocrisy by the government. For example, it has become a whole issue and rightly with the drugs of seropositive and the shortages in the hospitals. Indeed, it is well known that a large part of them are homosexual. In these cases, there is no sensitivity to their medication being seamlessly guaranteed? Especially when the delay in giving this treatment, even one day, has a negative effect on their health status.

Why should anyone's social rights depend on someone else?

And ultimately, why should anyone depend on someone else? Today, there are married women who remain in a relationship that does not cover them (physically, mentally, mentally) or women who may be subjected to domestic violence because they can not provide the means for themselves and their children to live. There is economic dependence on their spouse. On the other hand, there are virtually divorced couples in order to be subject to some provision of the law in relation to over-indebted households.

C:\Users\Amerimutt1488\Pictures\Owningthelibsepicstyle\Pol\Infographics\225532535.jpg

I completely disagree. I think it'd be best for kids to be raised by someone of the same sex, because they'll be more understanding. Sons who go up without fathers are statistically more likely to commit crimes.

I would bet that you could find statistical differences between people who have grown up with
-both mom/dad
-stay at home mom
-stay at home dad
-single dad
-single mom
-all other wonky combinations

Nature obviously intended for the version of both parents, where the mom is the bigger part.
It's not the same as saying anything else will be a complete fuckup. But now that gay couples adopting is becoming more normal, we can check in on it in 20 years time.

I place my bet that children who grow up with two dads/two moms will have some measurable differance compared to the average population.
Wether that difference is positive or not, I have no idea.

Finally: Probably better to stick a child with a gay couple than to leave it at some orphanage

*dabs*

Fuck off.

I'm slightly confused about their position, they say they are opposed to the government institutionalizing legal contracts of marriage outside of the religious setting with the view to offload children in care to LGBT couples? yet the next section doesn't really expand on that? I don't disagree with the next section talking about how there is severe hypocrisy in passing liberal bills for socially progressive causes whilst there are severe problems with provisions for the population as a whole, with many affecting the material lives of LGBT people as part of the broader working class, but I just don't see what their statement has to do with adoption. Are they protesting the piecemeal legislation here that functionally doesn't provide the working class with anything as just a liberal point scoring contest whilst the real social relations as related to marraige and households start to fall apart?

Lads, I think his choice of words was poor there too, but I don't think he's being dishonest or anything, just make a slightly silly appeal to nature which he clarifies shouldn't have much influence on how we view raising children. Personally I was raised by my mother & grandmother with 0 real male role models and I wouldn't disagree that there will obviously be some difference between me and say, someone with 2 married parents, although clearly I question our outcomes based more on class & social relations than any kind of inherent biology.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what they are going with. They say more about their position on gay marriage adoptions in the next section.

My point was more that children were raised communally, and not by mommy and daddy, before we even evolved into homo sapiens. Even if we accept appeals to nature he's wrong.

Then you could explain that fam, his frame of reference was pretty clearly implied as post-industrial capitalism, just telling him to fuck off isn't really doing anything, I know it's an imageboard and shitposting is fun and all but I'm sure you could educate that poster if you put the effort in, if we don't take the time to do so then how the fuck are we going to get people to come to sound conclusions, especially fellow communists?

Basically any species of mammal you can name have some difference in the way the male/female parents behave in regards to their children.

It's the way we've been wired through evolution to best ensure the survival of the most amount of children.

Again: It's not the same as saying it cannot be done any other way. But it is saying that it is what presumably worked best for the last 65+ million years.
Modern technology probably mixed this up a bit. But the classical male/female relationship in regards to children still works well.

(cont.)
So, what does that prove? It demonstrates that marriage, the family, by themselves, is not a means of satisfying a series of social rights that must be met universally, for all.

Second issue. There are a number of issues that have also been heard in the Commission for the settlement of inheritance matters or for someone to get acquainted with matters relating to the health of someone else. Why should it be a matter for relatives only? Ensure the right to anyone who does not wish to have responsibility for such matters (inheritance, health, funeral) by appointing a private attorney, a friend, anyone he appreciates, having the the first reason to regulate his legal affairs.

In our opinion, much of these issues can be dealt with privately, in private agreements or in a will. If necessary, amendments must be made to the Civil Code, in the context of its reformation. Their regulation is an individual private affair.

We do not believe that sexual orientation, the satisfaction of sexuality or cohabitation alone, even in the context of a student cohabitation, produce social rights.

Rights and obligations are born in the marriage, which is the legal expression of the social relationship of the family. It includes the social protection of children, which are biologically the result of the sexual relationship between man and woman.

So, when as a government you pursue a private affair under this legislative framework, you are naming it family, in our opinion you are opening the way for adopting children or acquiring children in another way.

And in the cohabitation of homosexual couples, objectively the child has a falsified perception of this biological relationship, is distorted by his experiences. The male - parental and female - maternal patterns have their own characteristics that stem from the physiology of the human species and are necessary for the smooth psychosomatic and social development of the child.

And this objective reality is not overturned in the case of homosexual sexual orientation by the fact that in the heterosexual marriage there are problems of violence and other byproducts of the exploitative society. On this basis, gender inequalities and man's oppressive attitudes towards the woman and much more were produced.

If I can't talk trash on imageboards, then where can I talk trash!?! Sigh, you're right :'(
But no, his point of reference is obviously pre-agrarian society. At least I've never heard people make appeals to nature and then only include the past decades in their analysis.

Yeah, it seems you're right unfortunately, he is mistaken about pre-agrarian society, luckily we can rectify that.

kids need a feminine mother and a masculine father who can set a good example for them

I mean it would really benefit LGBT people to be in a communal child raising society as most of us prefer, because their gender just doesn't matters anymore. But that seems not to be what they want, in the opposite what they want is talking about their gender all the time. I guess taht's a pretty standard leftypol anti-idpol talking point tho

What about a feminine father and a masculine mother?

would result in him emulating the bad elements of each parent, he'd grow up to be weak and confused

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02b.htm
This chapter is very relevant;

...

sasuga ☭TANKIE☭s

You say bad because you think men should be masculine and women feminine, but offer no argument for why that should be the case.

oh shit nigger what are you doing

Because life is hard already, people don't need to handicap themselves further by adopting characteristics ill suited for them; men are predisposed to masculinity while females to feminity, trying to invert their development will handicap them in the long-run.

Guys who have effeminate fathers will pick up bad habits and have a hard time finding a good partner, feminity is not attractive to women, they want confident and masculine men.

Idk lad, I'm pretty gay myself and I don't do that, I think that a lot of LGBT people do get some backlash for supposedly being "straight acting" though, I think what you're referring to is just late-capitalist consumerist ideology subsuming individual identity and isn't really an inherent feature of being gay or whatever.

What I get from your post is that you got called faggot in school and want to raise a real macho son to avoid the same happening to him.

...

Would you prefer to get insulted for making no arguments instead?

what offended you?

You only made assertions, nothing really worth adressing. I disagree with basically every assertion you made, but it's impossible to adress them without having to type out massive walls to each one.

The nuclear family is what creates life. It's a biological truth.

Agreed

Not that guy you living meme, just think it's funny you're busting out your book of fallacies when you haven't actually argued for anything at all in any of your posts just asserted random stuff

Attached: firefox_2018-08-03_16-45-21.png (1629x575, 62.1K)

...

Pretty sure it's a joke. No one with a high enough Autism Level to open a browser would post that.

fuck off liberal go eat a veggie burger or some stupid shit like that

You should be banned though.

I want my own children because they're shit tons of work and I want by agency in their creation recognized instead of being saddled with the responsibility of someone else's decision. Women are way more "spooked" about this than men. How many fertile young women adopt even though they could have their own child, I'd be impressed if you could 1000 in a city of a few million.
The only one spooked here is you, thinking people have some sort of obligation to children other people have. Should I spend all time and money taking care of other people's elderly parents and neglect orhan children. No?. Why's that spooked one?. They're often in need just as much.

ever been to 4/pol/?

Please… no…

Attached: uJfwO.gif (329x319, 1.91M)

...

You need to breed Commies, that's the only way we can win at this point.

Why not adopt tho..? That's basically like stealing babies from the liberals.

What exactly about my posts was Liberal other than you being triggered that I don't think Gays should be put in camps?

none of this is coherent except your strange belief that children (actual existing vulnerable people you should feel a social responsibility to care for and nurture) are reduced to 'someone else's decision' and that adoption is being 'saddled' with something.
My post didn't mention sex at all, i don't see how any of this is relevant.
Our society is based on caring for children you retard, we have teachers in schools and nursuries, doctors, babysitters, aunts, uncles cousins and grandparents, everyone in our society tends to be involved in some aspect of childcare for children that aren't necessarily their own or related at all. They're young, vulnerable and need care and nurturing to survive, hence we have a social obligation to care for them. I wouldn't want to live in your nightmarish society where orphans and the elderly are left in the streets to die, there are no teachers and no one cares for children which they didn't pump out, because only those ones are worthy of investing time and effort into nurturing, after all their individual personhood and wellbeing are secondary features to the content of their chromosomes.
With your attitude towards children I doubt you should be a parent. I sincerely hope you're sterile.

sorry, I din't meant gays per se, just this very loud liberal LGBT bubble, you may know them too? Most of the ML gays I know don't refer to themselves as LGBT but just as gay.

don't question what pseudo-leftist Zig Forums "converts" say, just let their autstic rambles remain unheard, they don't deserve your time.

Come on lad, you know as well as I do that half of them aren't actually converts at all and are just trying to enforce more ideological hegemony than they actually have, they do it all across cuckchan too. Letting these people dig holes for themselves is great fun.

Yeah…So I guess children aren't going to want to know who their bio parents are, and want a relationship with them, not to mention a whole host of emotionally charged questions regarding why they were given up.
Also, why does someone get to have the fun of making a kid, but I'm expected to do all the work? Why is my labor being stolen for a decision I had no part in making. Oh and why does my parenthood start when SOMEONE ELSE wants a child and or sex, but not when I WANT TO BEGIN PARENTHOOD?
How is letting the terms of perhaps the most important phase of my life be decided by that couldn't care less about myself and their child?
Please answer, I really need a laugh.

I don't even know if this is a joke anymore. You do understand you can still fuck your wife even if you adopt, right?
The only real difference it would make is one less kid stuck at an orphanage.

It is, you're just triggered by my egotism. If I bought a house in your name and said "Welp! start paying that mortgage! Oh you don't like the house? Well we already built it and it needs an owner, get cracking!"
Considering that a child is a FAR more involved decision than buying a house, yes I want everything on MY terms. I'm not obligated to care for other people's children.
Because red painted liberal leftist feminists constantly admonish men for wanting their own children, and saying it shouldn't matter that they aren't their own children. Yet I'VE NEVER seen this scolding directed at fertile young women, and it's because you are spooked by liberal feminists male disposability core tenant they uphold.
Our society is based on capitalism and the the violent enforcement of it.
All those people are proles, and most people live far away from their extended family in first world countries, so the amount of raising cousins and the like are doing is negligible.
So are a lot of people.
Lol spooks, no I don't have an obligation to them. We only take care of children now as a society because capitalism needs dumb workers.
But automation is making workers more and more obsolete. So you're seeing the state slowly retract from supporting prole kids, there's schools in Detroit that have classrooms that frost over in the winter because the building are so dilapidated. If people are dumb enough to have children without the ability to support them themselves then they are extremely spooked by romantic hollywood spooks.
WE LIVE IN THE WORLD ALREADY. And all these poor orphans wouldn't lift a finger in solidarity for proles like myself, so WHY should I help them, all that's going to do is make myself MORE precarious.
Those people were children at some point, people will keep having kids if dumb dumbs like you keep shielding them from the consequences, which creates the paupers you state.
I ain't Zig Forums this has nothing to do with race, I'm talking about the welfare state and men and women that have children then externalize their cost on everyone else out of some spooked morality..
I'd make a great parent, and my child would thrive because he'd seek out reciprocal relationships instead parasitic ones because he was spooked by people like you.
If that were the case I'd adopt, BECAUSE THEN I'D BE IN MY BEST INTEREST. But yeah, if women can determine exactly who they have children with and when, then I'm going to demand that as well.

I'm not joking, and all you feminists are in for a RUDE awakening when the welfare state starts being dismantled in earnest, Trump has already begun.
All these romantic spooks regarding children are going to come crashing down, and the people that will suffer the most is the children themselves, but I'm the heartless monster lol.

holy pseudo-marxist pomo bullshit batman

let me guess, you probably believe in the "sexual free market" and "extraction of sexual value by chads and stacies" right? just fuck off

This post made me lol like 4 times. Holy shit. This is some severe autism.

Not him, but the trot spouted some insane bullshit

Oh wow so sex with my wife is transactional now? It's not a congress we both engage in and both benefit from. It's something as a man I'M PAID with for doing all the ridiculous work that goes into raising a kid.
There's no orphanages anymore, you're really ignorant about how this works. And the only reason a lot of people adopt is the STUPID amounts of gimmedats they get, it is not out of some spooked self sacrificing notion. There's people that adopt a litter of kids and just live off the money the gov gives them, MY AUNT DID THAT!

single motherhood creates much worse outcomes for children

Where did I imply that?
Yes there are.
Don't care why other people do it. That's not what this is about. You keep deflecting like that. "Why do I have to do this when those fucking WOMEN and FEMINISTS don't do it!?!?"

I observe hypergamy, 2/3rd of women marry a man that makes more money than them, and ALL women pretty much marry a man that's in their same income bracket. 25% of Norwegian men don't have bio children.
This idea that only incels think dating and courtship aren't classist is liberal gaslighting a priori "We're all free to compete for our needs" baloney.

I'm talking about the responsibility of parenthood then all of a sudden you bring up sex with my wife. Really made me thonk.
Not really, most countries have foster care programs.
It is about that, you're trying to guilt men into taking care of children that aren't their own when the only reason anyone does it now is because of material incentives from the state. You need to recognize that, you can't put your spook on the shelf and recognize without material incentives NO ONE is going to raise these kids. B-b-b-b-but your social climbing on a Nazi controlled chan is much more important that the material consequence on children your rhetoric may have.
I'm not deflecting, you won't answer the question. Why DO women get to be genetically deterministic but not men. You know it FAR easier for WOMEN to prevent unwanted pregnancies than men. They don't do that because of people like you, and more children are brought into the world to serve this bullshit spook.

I honestly engage in these debates to de spook myself about the left. You guys have great rhetoric and the more I read Marx the more I realize he's right. But the left is absolutely HAUNTED by pretty much every other spook.

No, you kept saying "why do I have to raise a kid when I didn't get to put le peepee in the vajayjay to make le baybay". I'm pointing out you can still have sex even if you adopt.
No, I'm trying to guilt men and women. This incel victim complex is insane.
You do understand that it takes both sperm and an egg to make a baby, right? And when you adopt a kid, neither the sperm nor the egg will come from the new parents. Aka the new man AND woman. I wonder how fucked up you are.

if you are going to break out formal logical fallacies, it's best to spell them correctly

Yes I did ask that, again would you be fine if I put a 30 year mortgage in your name, then when you balked called you an incel and that it shouldn't matter, all homes are the same?
And yes you framed it to imply I believe people that adopt are cucks. No sorry, what I'm saying feminists like you are hypocritical when you tell men they shouldn't care if a child is their's, but never obligate women to adopt children even if they are fertile, because you know what would happen, you'd be ripped to sheds by the majority of women because the majority of women are feminists.
So do you tell fertile women they shouldn't have their own bio children, or admonish new moms that have children they need to give up? Yes or No?
Yes idiot, and you do understand that that child was conceived with any input from the parents, if the parents are barren GREAT! Serves their best interest, they won't look a gift horse in the mouth, but not mine. I have the ability to conceive when and how I want.
I guess it's better to just let this problem fester than.

SHADUP!

False equivalence.
I did not. That must be your insecure projection.
I do though. I take great pride in not being a hypocrite, actually, something you should try too.
If they already had the kid it's too late, no? But yes. I tell 'fertile women' (if we're on the subject of children) that I think adoption is the moral choice.

No it's not, it a huge obligation that you cannot get out of. The "fun" part so to speak is getting to choose you're own home, what will be in it etc, because you're paying for it. If for some weird reason you don't want to choose that great, but you're saying men SHOULDN'T want that and that's spooked moralism.
More feminist name calling
Haha, I don't believe you. Where have you done this? I'll be impressed if you can come up with a believable anecdote.
So tell me, would adoption rates, rise, fall or stay flat if state incentives were pulled? I'm a hypocrite for recognizing women are having children to server their own best interests but I'm not allowed to server my own by being unwilling to raise them. Having someone control my time and labor with zero say so from me totally won't be abused by women right? They're angels!
Oh and what do they say back hmmm?

I guess women can only have one child in their lives huh?
How many women have actually done it, oh that's right, it's not within your power to make them do that, so all that amounts to is nothing. It's like women won't do what's moral until what's moral starts serving their best interest. I don't think having society do the most difficult part of having a child will do that though, but you know I'm just a crazy incel lol.

Attached: 0346ab.jpg (258x245, 11.91K)

this

Just because the baby comes from your sperm does not mean you can choose what it'll be like. In fact, adopting will give you more options in the "choosing" department.
No, an observation I made from you spazzing out over something I didn't even imply.
… I once sat with my friends at a bar and we were talking about having kids. I said I think adoption is the moral choice. Everyone agreed. true story
No idea and don't care. I don't considder this relevant to the morality of adoption. Where I'm from there are no economic advantages from adoption.
Can you get over this, please? I'm not talking to you as if you're a representative of men. I'm talking to you as a human. I've made this very clear by now, I think both men and women should adopt. In fact, it's almost impossible to adopt unless it's a couple doing it. I really have a hard time understanding you.
No idea what this means.
Depends on the woman (and man), but usually *people* agree, but don't actually follow up on it.

I'm done now btw.

Attached: weary.jpg (241x209, 6.26K)

I'm not sure how a dull, truthful statement like this can invoke Poe's Law

My point is I don't get anything out of helping children that aren't mine.

Huh? This is wrong both superficially AND psychologically. You know babies can be affected by what the mother did through pregnancy? Yet ANOTHER variable I don't get to control because of your spooked moralism.
It doesn't let me "choose" having a bio baby. And no, you don't get that much choosing unless you want a teenager or something, everyone goes after the infants.
No, it's name calling.
That's not admonishing them for wanting their own bio children.
Bet you dollars to doughnuts that the adoption rate is way lower than places where THERE ARE state incentives.
Lol no, I'm the one that will have to live with the consequences.
No you've made it clear that MEN should PAY/RAISE for children that aren't there own, at no point did you say what men would get out of it. You also don't give a good reason as to why men shouldn't demand their own bio children other than your moralist "society" spook.
Women AND men that have children should be fully burdened with the task of raising them. Then BOTH sexes would be more careful having children, this ain't the Victorian era, there's like a dozen different ways to control pregnancy. Including abstinence uh oh I've gone and done it now!
It means if men raise children without demanding they get something out of it it incentives women to have children that they can't raise themselves or select partners that can raise them.
DUH!!!! So since they actually didn't do it they didn't agree with your moralizing at all then huh?

Nobody should be having kids. There's too many people, making too many problems, and there's not much love to go around.

China one child policy is a good start. But more than that we need autonomy of the father like in Arab countries where mothers don't decide shit. Pic related this was your mom too before she settled.

Attached: ceae69c.png (1281x1113, 1.21M)

the nuclear family doesn't mean "man-woman pairing" you fucking autist.