- Joined
- Dec 3, 2024
It's a very useful thread, actually.
It provides us with a convenient list of degenerates on this forum.
just kidding
or am I?
LGBTQiwis
- Thread starter Randall Fragg
- Start date
It provides us with a convenient list of degenerates on this forum.
just kidding
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2023
Peepeepoopoo Witch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2024
What's wrong with Thunderdome? You don't consider a bunch of wignats saying "DURR NIGGER DURR BRIGGER NIGGER DURR BASED BASED BASED JEW JEW JEW BASED BASED BASED WHITE WOMEN LOL WHITE WOMEN" to be intellectually stimulating?
brazilsucksdick
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I just checked it
I...I didn't know surrogacy was LGBT
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2024
The whole surrogocy debate is so retarded. I hate it when people suddenly care about random chick's kids they didn't ever give a fuck about only because they're adopted by a gay couple. I wish the anti-surrogacy debaters stop pretending they care, and just say gays are icky or something, cuz that's what they truly mean.
It's not like the big bad gays are stealing the child or something, the coom used for it's creation is their (that's why it's stupid to compare it to child trafficking). So fair game. I don't think one deserves to be deprived of their own bloodline simply because they like to put it in the wrong hole.
May be I should go to that thread and start some shit over the topic of surrogacy. Hmm.
brazilsucksdick
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
That would be retarded. Do it so i can laugh at you.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
It's yet another one of those things that technically has truth to it, but it's only brought up in the case of gay haterade. The "gotcha" I've been rolling my eyes at lately is the condescending moralizing about "relationships aren't about love or feelings; marriage is an entirely cold, mercenary arrangement where you fuck through a hole in a sheet exactly 2.5 times to produce and rear children and maybe eventually you learn the bitch's name and buy her flowers sometimes", because yeah that's *exactly* why you got married, mhmm, I'm so sure.
I think a lot of arguments in that realm boil down to simple hatred for gay people-would be more respectable if you just said you hate faggots and are disgusted by them, than trying to use some fake moral compass as a shield.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2024
Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to say. I fucking hate it when they do that. There's something especially foul about bringing up kids as shields and then pretending you care about them. It's even funnier, because when people from the other side of the political spectrum do that they turn on ape mode (appropriately so).
I wish they also just said they hate trannies cuz they're icky instead of pretending they give a fuck about chromosomes or even know what these are.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
I'm not an expert on this topic, but my current opinion is that surrogacy should not be paid, you should not be able to financially compensate/"buy" for this "service", however it may be done voluntarily by a consenting individual.
The main reason is because when money enters the scene, undoubtedly corruption plagues it in ways that can never be fully controlled.
So what you'd have is a willing surrogate that will act as one for (most likely) someone close to them, and purely altruistically because she knows they'll be good parents; out of kindness, to help bring a child for their loved ones.
If the people in search for this do not have someone who would sign up for the surrogacy (willingly for no financial compensation), they can adopt.
I believe this is reasonable, as it eliminates the major potential factor for exploitation and shady stuff (money), while providing a way for surrogacy to be chosen (with a consenting & informed adult, that takes understood responsability for their actions), and in case this is unviable, an alternate method is possible (adoption).
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2023
I don't get why gays need anything more than decriminalisation of homosex, civil union and the ability to donate blood.
Marriage? Most homos sneer at that.
Surrogacy and adoption? Ew, that's what icky and boring cishet breeders do, we're so much better and above them.
Whatever else gays demand like serving in the military and being clergy? Most gays are some sort of leftist or commie who thinks religious institutions and military are chock-full of fascist chuds.
So why would homos need anything more than the basic rights?
Marriage? Most homos sneer at that.
Surrogacy and adoption? Ew, that's what icky and boring cishet breeders do, we're so much better and above them.
Whatever else gays demand like serving in the military and being clergy? Most gays are some sort of leftist or commie who thinks religious institutions and military are chock-full of fascist chuds.
So why would homos need anything more than the basic rights?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
Because normal people in the real world are not the borderline-caricatures screeching on the internet that you seem to think everyone who likes sucking dick for cock is.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2023
Except that's practically every explicitly gay space outside Farms and a few similar small forums and every gay rights organisation and group. Not even the gay rights activists consider normal, everyday gays actual gays.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2024
I don't get surrogacy. The kid will only be 1/2 part of your biological family, so it doesn't completely pass your families bloodline onto the next generation. I guess you could solve that problem by having multiple kids, but if you care about your bloodline so much that you are willing to get a random pregnant in order to pass it on, than you will probably also have issues with the child that isn't biologically yours. Why not just adopt at that point?
Doublefrag
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2025
i know a few gays irl who refuse to do anal
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2024
I see where you're going with this, but I have to disagree.
Look, you don't pay for the child from an orphanage in a lot of countries (Russia, for example), so by your logic (if I understood your point correctly) this fact should protect said child from being adopted by weirdos. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. Children can be adopted by weirdos whether they pay for them or not. If anything, payment is actually beneficial for the child's safety, because it censes out a large number of people who won't be able to provide proper care. And which child do you think would be more preferred by creeps: a free one, or one that costs money? Money is a pretty good filter.
The thing about surrogacy is that there are surrogacy centres (or is it different in other countries? idk). Which means 1)Mothers are being protected and properly cared for, 2)They (as well as the adoptive parents) are controlled and documented by the government. So why shouldn't mothers receive payment for risking their health and going through painful exhausting procedures?
Weirdos who don't want to pay a lot can just go to a dirt poor neighbourhood and purchase an already born child for a bottle of vodka instead of waiting for 9 month. Taking money away from surrogate moms won't solve literally anything imo. Besides, what if we're not talking about gays (unusual on this site, I know)? What if it's a straight infertile couple? That would be their only hope of continuing their bloodline. Well, as a massive anticommie, I sure know that taking money out of the picture will make people care way less about their job. You don't want that when it comes to someone's only hope for having blood related kids. Moreover, good income means surrogate mother eats well, which is beneficial for the developing child.
>someone close to them, and purely altruistically because she knows they'll be good parents
1) In case of weirdos there is a good chance the close ones are also weirdos who wouldn't mind providing
2) How many women do you know who would voluntarily go through the torturous process of pregnancy and birth to give a child away? A majority of people just don't have that one friend and it has nothing to do with their personal qualities.
3) In the current system nothing is stopping a caring friend from volunteering no matter whether other mothers are being paid for the same thing or not.
>however it may be done voluntarily by a consenting individual
Wait.... So... Everything will work pretty much the same way? Except no centres that can provide protection and control because no stable funding. It definitely won't stop pedos who'd want to pay, it'll make thing much worse, actually. I don't see any point. Though, again, may be I don't understand how surrogacy works in other countries.
Yeah. It's more than 0 though.
Besides, there are different kinds of surrogate pregnancies. As far as I understand, in the case of straight couples, they take woman's egg, fertilise it with her husband's sperm, and just "grow" said egg (an embryo at that point) in surrogate mother's womb. In this case the child is a 100% biological offspring of their parents. But in the gay case it's 1/2, yes. But as I said, better than nothing.
>you will probably also have issues with the child that isn't biologically yours.
>Why not just adopt at that point?
You... You literally just answered your own question.
Either that or I misunderstood your point.
Yes, this. "Offline" people are much more chill and down-to-Earth. And when you're mostly exposed to "online" people (who are online for a reason, mind you) you may not notice that. So the moral of the story is: go outside and do barbeque.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Most white people nowadays don't want to reproduce. Should they not be allowed to then? Doesn't make any sense.
Gays are already fucking, why not let them marry at that point? Actually it is important for christian gays, because, by the lore of Christianity, marriage is a union between couple and God. Pretty damn meaningful.
Also, marriage is a tradition. It doesn't have to have a point. Traditions are a crucial part of a healthy society. Humans aren't calculating robots, man. Let people have fun.
Oh, and marriage also allows you hospital visits and money inheritance etc.
Some quotes in the post are just >greentext because I was absent for so long I forgot how to insert quotes on the Farms. Whoops.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
No, I never said that it would protect kids from "weirdos" by having the surrogacy not being compensated, don't know how you made that conclusion.
Money is not a "good" filter, in fact, it can be a "bad" filter, and a very bad one at that. First of all, by having surrogacy legally & financially compensated opens this practice up as a "business practice": it pushes financially poor individuals to become the surrogate, and therefore having them not caring much about the baby. This baby will be the means to an end, money, and in such case, the surrogate won't care that much (or at all) about the parents he/she will have.
This also opens up a myriad of ways for fraud, money laundering, extortion, etc for the purpose of financial benefit. I can see a world where trafficking with surrogates is a thing, where (cartels, gangs, etc) they'll extort them for huge financial benefits, much like prostitutes, similar to "pimps" arranging "meetings" with "customers", but with organized crime (in such case, the mother won't care about the baby in the absolute slightest). This is just an example though.
To tie everything up and address some other things you said: according to how I would do things, the surrogate does so altruistically, and because of it, it stands to logic that she'll want good parents for this child, that this wish will realize because she knows very well this soon to be parents, and that the soon to be parents also know the surrogate and that she can have this baby with no serious financial obstacle (otherwise it would be called off, since otherwise it could even affect the baby), because it's a procedure of trust and thoughtful decision making, unlike when paid, which widely opens it up for the opposite.
To finish up, it is entirely possible that someone does so altruistically, and when it's done, you know there's a high chance of it being done out of love. In cases where it's not possible, as said, adoption is a choice. And to me (personally), this bloodline thing is not something imperative, if life cannot give you descendants in the way that you decided to live your life (or you're sterile, or whatever else), adopting a kid or a baby is perfectly viable, because I believe that love is stronger than blood.
Peepeepoopoo Witch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2024
Anything to back up that this isn't just your perception?
Lol so what? Activists speak for activists with very few exceptions.
Do you actually see children as people? Or are they just an extension of you? That is exactly how clinical narcissists think. You're supposed to have children out of love, not because you worship genetics or muh bloodline. You "muh genes" people sound like a narcissistic anime villain when you talk like this. If that's really how you feel it's a good thing you're not reproducing because you're too self-absorbed to be a parent.
I was with you until this. We give a fuck because transwomen are men, transmen are women, most of them are coomers with a Cluster-B Personality Disorder, and gender is just an identity like being dragonkin is an identity.