(CONTROVERSY) Also Pretty Political tbh: Gillette Ad

[Killer Angel]

I have no problem with same sex couples raising children,

This is an interesting topic.
Once i was a fervent supporter of the fact that children raised in a same sex couple were in a worse enviroment than the ones raised by male/female parents.
The reasoning: we as humans are made to grow up with a father and a mother as parental figures. We are structured to confont ourselves with them, we pass through Oedipus complex (or Electra complex), the parent of our same sex is firstly a rival, than the one we'd like to emulate. As adults, we search in our partners for behaviors we already know (girls that look for a fatherly figure) and so on.
If you remove one kind of gender from the equation, the final result will suffer from it.

However, it seems that recent evidences show that children who have been raised by parents of the same sex have shown no significant difference when compared to children raised in a traditional family structure. So, i am suspending my judgement.

 

[Scalenex]

Generally speaking, the responsibility of raising children should fall on the shoulders of at least two parents. Two parent households will always perform better at raising their children regardless of their gender or if they're same-sex.

I think you are probably right but I hope you are wrong.

If your premise is true, then a single parent home is by default a broken home. Anyone who chooses to raise a child by themselves is committing a deeply amoral act.

If my assertion is true that being a single parent by choice is amoral that means I live in an unethical society because it subsidizes single parent households. The math changes from state to state a little bit but on average if you add up housing support, various food subsidies and all the other programs plus about 20 hours working part time at minimum wage (you need to work part time to qualify for some things) a single mother of two can get about $60,000 a year. The median income for an adult American male is about $43,000. Men have to eat too, and pay taxes, so at best a man in this situation could probably put $30,000 to his family. That means the government, in dollar terms is a more attractive marriage partner than the average man.

If the mother in question can can shake some child support, she has more incentive to not keep the man around and maybe get $70,000 a year in benefits. Men who don't pay child support are thrown in jail, so effectively the government is stealing money from the father and giving it to the mother. The United States abolished debtor's prison. Banks can take your property but they cannot akey your freedom, but you can go to jail for failure to pay taxes or failure to pay chld support.

The way child support laws are written, a single mother of two is eligible to get more child support if the two children have different fathers than if both children came from one man, like $80,000 in total benefits.

The government is financially encouraging broken homes. If you subsidize something you get more of it.

 

[Killer Angel]

If your premise is true, then a single parent home is by default a broken home. Anyone who chooses to raise a child by themselves is committing a deeply amoral act.

That's a big assumption.
The basic concept should be more like: "single parents can still do an excellent job in raising a child, but 2 parents are better equipped for the task, simply because they can share the burden".

 

[Killer Angel]

Either make toxic behavior gender neutral, or also acknowledge toxic femininity. Unless it's couched in entertainment and fiction like the movie Mean Girls, the mere whiff of the phrase "toxic femininity" is taboo and has gotten people banned from social media and academia.

I've just stumbled upon this, which is pretty on topic