Its interesting that nowadays we can talk about having kids as being a "want", like wanting ice cream or wanting to go to italy. did ppl prior to the 20th century do this, or was it simply assumed to be a social obligation in addition to a familial one? Or for that matter, do women living in kenya or somalia discuss children as being a hobby project of their love for their husbands, or is it that having children is an economic necessity for them?
in interviews i keep seeing them tacitly assume their sons will become labourers & support them in old age. and that their daughters can be married off in exchange for a dowry. They dont seem to see their children as being a sort of hobby project with their husband or an expression of love. maybe what we have rn (the assumption that we are essentially free to choose who we marry) is just historically weird and aberrant which is the source of the confusion here
there is only 12.5% human exclusive brain mass in a human brain so across most of time humanity has acted on animal instinct and even with that 12.5% we humans have used it to aid the rest of the brain in functioning for most of our time on this planet and still do to this day when individuals cant guarantee food and water security. As such it's not that parents in poorer areas have less love for their kids because of the desired outcome are not aligned with a very liberal "individuals who want to be a vice should be free to be a vice" mentality that you see in the west.
the outcome of seeing their boys not starve because they can work while their daughters don't have to brave the world alone IS love to people who don't have food or water security like the developed world and they value that highly... it's why parents in those regions also talk about kids taking care of them when they are older, they cant get any resources themselves anymore and it's love to give those things to those people
Yeah I think youre right, its a shame that a system which prioritizes seeing children as simply offspring and opportunity to make more assets has always been more common than just having a kid with someone you love - like in medieval times when royalty would make their kids marry other royal's kids simply to maintain a status
But with same sex couples nowadays it really is essentially just affection based since its already frowned upon by more conservative folk (the kind that sees their children as just "offspring") and they cant have traditional children without assisting methods. Then I feel like it really is easier to assume it as just a love thing instead of a responsibility thing
as for you, no, if royals merely married off kids to maintain a status there would not be many, many, MANY cases of forced marriage throughout the ages and you see this if you read into antiquity on how many royals didn't marry their daughters off willingly they simply gave them up after a war or under threat of war. You see it decline as history goes on and like many things the modern version is an oddity that runs against the grain of nature like the "medieval" (AGE OF EXPLORATION and beyond, you mean) part of royalty's history
same sex couples run on the same logic the rest of us do, they are just unreproductive with the outcomes, their base instincts that create the concept of love ARE demanding kids it's just crossed wiring that led them to feel that urge for the same sex and you can see this in other animals as well.
also trying to dig at conservatives by using an example of African family social structure as a morally objectionable state kind of sounds... anyways, it's not utilitarianism son, just because people like family structures that promote kids and resource security does not mean they never feel any love and are heartless... that's a socialist education speaking