Why do you think gay is okay?

>>8261135
Why is having a child OK when there's so many that need to be adopted?
Fucking selfish heterosexuals just shitting out more babies and have no empathy to adopt, disgusting.

>>8261147

>Why is having a child OK when there's so many that need to be adopted?

I encourage adoption, my wife and I will probably do that.

Is your argument against having children more about a lack of children being adopted? Or are you making an overpopulation argument?

>>8261135
>implying being straight means children won't end up failures under a het couples care
Tell me why I'm gay but my parents are heterosexual

File: 1449440109234.png (161KB, 636x736px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 636x736px

>>8261156

>implying being straight means children won't end up failures under a het couples care

Now, I didn't say that. There is certainly a great amount of abuse against children in straight couples.

But the statistics regarding children who are deprived of their natural fathers and mothers, and replaced with gay or lesbian couples are clear. Pic related.

>>8261158
Was Hitler conceived by a homosexual couple?
Didn't think so.

Fucking heteros.

File: 1491134314373.jpg (31KB, 660x574px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 660x574px

>>8261160

You weren't conceived by a homosexual couple anon.

>>8261158
Nice report on blacks. Aka kids deprived of their natural father's.
But your evidence is racist and thusly must be discarded

>>8261163
Exactly my point.

Heterosexual couples spawn all the humans hence all bad humans are spawned by hetereosexual couples, hence heterosexual couples are bad.

Checkmate.

>>8261166

A big portion of those numbers are children from single mothers. If it were more whites deprived of their natural fathers, we'd see similar statistics.

Do you not agree?

>>8261169
>b-but single mothers
Still a fatherless environment
>b-but what if it was whites
But the left wouldn't support Islam if it's followers were white

File: 1445274561633.jpg (733KB, 1074x1828px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1074x1828px

>>8261174

>Still a fatherless environment

Yes, that was my point.

>But the left wouldn't support Islam if it's followers were white

I won't disagree with you there. I'm just saying that children who are deprived of their natural fathers are more likely to have issues in life.

This is certainly true of single mothers and lesbian/gay couples too.

What part of that do you disagree with?

>>8261135
>obvious psychological detriments.
As a professional psychologist, would you care to share with us your research and evidence for your proposed hypothesis? I'm curious as to why your study has resulted in a different conclusion to multiple others that claim the opposite to be true.

>it's clearly not going to result in a child
Neither does playing monopoly or owning a car. Is that all humans are to you? Baby making machines? Is any time spent not trying to make babies a waste of time? Is celibacy wrong too? Should we be having sex with girls as soon as they have their first period? Wouldn't it be wrong to waste the few years between 13 and whatever the legal age of consent in your country is. Think of how many children they could pump out in that time!

Overall, good troll if a little unoriginal. You actually rustled my jimmies and I think I can smell my breakfast burning. 7/10

>>8261185

>As a professional psychologist, would you care to share with us your research and evidence for your proposed hypothesis?

Sure, I'll give you one. Allow me to steal a bit from a copypaste, but these are genuine questions.

If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexualit is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others sphincters?
If homosexuality is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?

I really do question the idea that homosexuality is not a choice.

> Is that all humans are to you? Baby making machines?

Of course not

But I'm sure you're aware that there are many homosexuals who are saddened by the realization that they can never have a child with someone else if they maintain their lifestyle.

>>8261194
Oral sex is Sodomy. You fucking sodomites.
Anything beyond sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation is a degenerate fetish.
Using condoms is a fetish.

Where will your argument be when they finish research on male pregnancy
>inb4 unnatural
Male seahorse

File: lesharpbamboozlehook.jpg (22KB, 651x575px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 651x575px

>>8261194
what a fucking low tier troll
>hurr durr guis this sreious thread no bait i swer xD

>>8261194
>why are gays so promiscuous?

That's a problem with testosterone boy-o

>>8261205

>Oral sex is Sodomy. You fucking sodomites.

Why do gays always assume that people who disagree with their lifestyle are religious? This just isn't true. If your only argument is to assume I'm making a religious argument, then you have none yourself

>Where will your argument be when they finish research on male pregnancy

You can watch me eat my words when this happens. But until then...

>>8261224
>eat my words
Bitch I'm a get you pregnant

>>8261194
>If homosexuality is comparable to infertility
it's not
>If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex
it't not
>If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender
what? it's not
>If homosexualit is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others sphincters?
straight people spread the most STDs. Anal sex isn't only performed by gay men.
>If homosexuality is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
This is dumb because you're arguing highly subjective morals here. Is promiscuity a bad thing? Who can actually judge that? I'd argue that the want to have sex as much as possible is a very natural occurrence in the male gender of any species. Males compete to get as many fucks as possible. In a system where the female is the sexual botteneck if you remove the female then there's gonna be a lot of sex. It would happen with straight dudes too. Promiscuity has nothing to do with homosexuality.

>>8261194
Homosexuals are more promiscuous because
1) They don't have to try very hard for sex. There's no woman playing hard to get, you just download grindr and wait for Tyrone to offer you his dick.
2) The anti-Christian sentiment that's prevalent in homo culture due to past oppression. They actively try to subvert traditional morals in an edgy counter-cultural movement and this hedonism bleeds into the culture as a whole, which then influences other fags into being more promiscuous to fit in or because they see it as expected.

>>8261158
Actually same sex couples raise more successful children, particularly lesbians where there is no father.

This is statistical fact from the UK government as opposed to your bigoted tripe pulled out of your ass.

Unfortunately I can't find the articles published by the NHS a few years ago but a simple google search will show that gay people raise better kids.

So fuck off.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers/

>>8261242

>Is promiscuity a bad thing?

As far as health goes. Yes. Straight or Gay, extreme promiscuity is bad for you and usually results in diseases.

>inb4 "I am always safe"

When you're as slutty as that, you can only mitigate so much.

Also. I'd like to establish some definitions.

I submit that one is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessary activity or desire.

Biologically necessary activities or desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations. Such as gaining food, resources, education of the young, and sexual reproduction.

Desires are either biological or psychological in character, they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.

Also, desire are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires.

Consider this example: A person who has nevr had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol's sake, but only for some other sake. Such as acceptance in a peer group.

Homosexual desires are by these definitions, not biological desires. The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.

One is a homosexual if and only one either

1) engages in homosexual activity

2) has homosexual desires

3) Has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity

One engages in homosexual activity either

A) voluntarily

B) involuntarily

(1. A): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice

(1.B): One is compelled to engage either i) psychologically or ii) physically by another, and homosexuality is not a choice

(1.B.i): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness

(2.B): One has acquired homosexual desires through homosexual activity. If one acquires these involuntarily through involuntary engagement in homosexual activity. One is either coerced by another or one is mentally ill.

>>8261256
Lol M8 if you were smarter you'd know that's a study of single mother black children.
When crime is the first stat on there you know it's niggers

>>8261256
>same sex couples raise more successful children
>This is statistical fact from the UK government
How could the government possibly know that? How long have same sex couples even been allowed to raise children?

The faggt OP is trolling, but you seem genuinely retarded, and that is worse!

>>8261256

>The finding is based on 78 children who were all born to lesbian couples who used donor insemination to become pregnant and were interviewed and tested at age 17.

Sample size not big enough for accurate results. There are always outliers. Overall statistics is what gives credit to an argument.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has provided a much larger and more reliable count in regards to fatherless children.

>>8261262
>mostly black fatherless children
Ftfy

>>8261258

and if 3), one either chooses to be homosexuality, or homosexuality is a mental illness.

>>8261258
I don't know where you copy and pasted this from, but after a quick google, terms like "biologically necessary" turn out to be completely made up. When the foundations of this entire argument rely of a definition which has quite clearly been made up to fit this thought experiment, I'd conclude the resulting faux-intellectual logic is complete bollocks.
You're trying to argue that the desire for homosexual sex and the desire for heterosexual sex are two separate "biological activities", when any biologist will quite happily tell you that there is no distinction. Humans have an innate desire for sex. That's all.

>>8261271

Biological necessity is pretty self-explanatory. They are two words, and if you use them together their definition is clear. I don't see what's made up about that.

>>8261262
>a sample size of 78 isn't big enough

Considering the overall population number of this demographic, it could be. Also, small sample sizes don't necessarily discredit findings, take a stats class.

>>8261262
Those fatherless statistics probably have more to do with socioeconomic status than the fact children need a father.
All of the statistics which support me monitor people from similar aoxioeconomic backgrounds, so they're actually a lot more relevant.

>>8261276
I disagree

>>8261258

There are so, so many things wrong with what you just posted lol. Hopefully you're still in grade school and the school system hasn't failed this terribly but anon, know that this is a terrible progression in reasoning. It's not correct.

>>8261281

Socioeconomic status and fatherless children go hand in hand due to the commonality of desperate women who try to keep a man by getting pregnant, and also through the men who simply ditch the women. So obviously it's poor people who become fatherless more often. That's just one example, but similar situations often arise in those environments.

But again, the majority of those children who had fathers fared better than those who did not. None of that discredits what is said about those who are lacking a loving father and mother. Guarantee that even with a poor economic status, having a stable father and mother will make a childs success-rate skyrocket.

>>8261287
Show us the proof.

>>8261283
>>8261285

These are disagreements but they are not rebuttals. At least with the racists in /pol/ they respond with substance. Why respond at all if you have nothing more to say except sentiment?

>>8261291
Pacement apes

>>8261135
it's not like it's a choice lol. it's not good or bad. it just is.

>Why do you think gay is okay?
Because I'm not a perv who cares what others do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

>But why do you think homosexuality is good?
I don't think homosexuality is good or bad. It's not something anyone has any control over.

>I would even go so far as to say that having adopted children as a faggot couple should be discouraged because of the obvious psychological detriments.
[citation needed]
Also, most people prefer to pass their genetics. Homosexual people don't have much of an option, which means they're more likely to adopt. 2 men or 2 women is better than 0 men and 0 women when it comes to raising a kid.

>>8261135
Do you know it take two straight people to make one gay baby.

>>8261258
You're fucking stupid. None of this proves homosexuality is bad. If homosexuality is a choice, who cares no one gives a fuck. If homosexuality meets your own personal definition of mental illness(or the definition made up by whoever wrote this and thought this was clever. For your sake I'm going to hope this is copy pasta), who cares, no one gives a fuck, anyone can spend all day coming up with a clever definition for "bad" and label whatever they don't like as so, my younger sister could do it, and likewise no one would care what she personally believed to be bad. And if one gains homosexuality through coercion, sure it's unfortunate that happened, but who cares,nobody gives a fuck. What are you even trying to argue? Is this all for the sake of having the right to say "hehe I personally think gay is stoopid" or are you genuinely trying to cause the gays here who are as dumb as you are to have some great realization that magically changes the polarity of their boners? Your post amounts to paragraphs worth of "personally I think being gay is like a bad thing" and if that's the best you've got in you I suggest you move past community college, come back in a few years and try again.

>>8261135
OP a literal fag...being gay is a fucking mental illness. All data points to it if you don't drink the liberal koolaid.

>>8261135
>obvious psychological detriments
even assuming they are related to being gay and not other factors, I am still waiting for you retarded polfags to come up with evidence showing that someone is better off an orphan than with a gay family. as for other means gay people can be good, you can increase your family's competitiveness in terms of helping parents or sisters and brothers find good offspring to fuck or increase the power and prestige of the family through wealth and industry which further increases the evolutionarycompetitiveness of your genes even if you don;t personally spread them

>>8262130
wow sorry about that I litterally just woke up
>you can increase your family's competitiveness in terms of helping parents or sisters and brothers find good people to marry or increase the power and prestige of the family through wealth and industry which further increases the evolutionarycompetitiveness of your genes even if you don;t personally spread them

>>8261258
>incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessary activity or desire

What if they simply believe the positives of that activity outweigh the risks? I'd submit that it's then a very rational decision.

>>8261294
Anon, you're just assigning an arbitrary normative value to certain biological components of human behavior.

>>8261258
>>Is promiscuity a bad thing?
>As far as health goes. Yes. Straight or Gay, extreme promiscuity is bad for you and usually results in diseases.
wrong, also gays aren't more promiscuous, its just not as difficult to appeal to the opposite sex when it comes to hook up culture because both partners will have the same priorities and wont have to appeal to someone with completely different on average priorities.
Promiscuous sex is a successful evolutionary trait in humanity, it's why it exists in the first place, and It's mind numbly insane how a lot of people critical of gays being unnatural will say in the same breath that their promiscuity is bad when they are promoting a naturalist arguement based on children, and it's a fact that promiscuous sex results in more children.

Now socioeconomically promiscuity is fucking awful, but if you accept that, then you have to accept that the best thing to do accept and normalize being gay specifically because being blatantly oppressive to them through having them being able to be fired just for who they fuck is only going to increase this kind of hook up culture not reduce it. The only true chemo to hook up culture is traditional values for gays and that is ironically never going to happen because the right is too concerned with gays getting married stepping all over their fee fees to understand that married gays are less promiscuous and therefore a more stable element in the economy.

This is the same shit as the catholic shilling for abstinance only education. the right wing morons need to grow up and get over themselves. there are certain ugly truths in this world, gays have more extramarital sex (they haven't been able to get married till just now), teenagers who are under age are going to fuck, and if abortion is illegal all that will change is the number of babies dumped in dumpsters and coathanger abortions. These are all facts and so far only liberal politics have accepted it as true.

>>8262041
If you use the term "is", there must either be NO examples to the contrary, or you must be able to explain why those examples exist.

As long as a statistically significant amount of well-adjusted, psychologically healthy adult gay men exist, the only thing you'll ever be able to posit is that homosexuality is CORRELATED with mental disorder, as that's all the data has ever shown.

>>8262130
gay men are known to sexually abuse kids they adopt and to ignore that reality is to advocate the sexual abuse of children:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305125/Gay-couple-accused-molesting-9-adopted-children-withdraw-guilty-plea-decide-trial-fight-allegations.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/george-harasz-douglas-wirth-gay-couple-sexual-abuse-foster-sons_n_3039562.html

Liberals just love to put kids around adults that have the ability have sex with them and look the other way cuz 'muh gay bigotry'. Fags should never be allowed to have children or adopt them. It's pretty clear that kids need a safe environment without being turned into a sexual object and have the courts codify that NAMBLA-like behavior since liberals Love the fuck outta NAMBLA.

>>8262198
>gay men are known to sexually abuse kids they adopt
>Cites anecdotal evidence

Wew

>>8262230
Liberal news articles are 'anecdotal evidence'. This is how Trump wins and you're to fucking retarded to see it. Go change into one of the 1,258,354,698,096 'genders' fagbook authorized today.

>>8262198
Anon, do you know how many news stories I could link in order to make the claim

"Straights are known to fuck their 1-year old stepchildren"?

>>8262261
>He's upset because anecdotes are considered anecdotal evidence

So I assume you're either a troll or don't actually know what that means, right?

>>8262198
Yeah and my aunt raped my dad when he was small and my mom once was molested by an elderly neighbor and later she went on to stick a finger up my butt. Does this mean we need to get rid of all sisters/mothers/elderly men? Fuck no. Every group of people is full of sick child diddling fucks, every adult has the ability to fuck a kid and mentally ruin them forever. Shit if there's any group of people you gotta be wary of it's men seeing as how there's so many out there who'd argue that it's natural for them to want to fuck fourteen year olds, and shit they even have the biggest track record for fucking kids.

>>8262286
What's your relationship with your mother, Anon? I've met girls who were molested by their dads and it resulted in just huge amounts of hate but have never talked to someone in your position.

So like OP, do you regurgitate things quoted straight from /pol/ in real life too? Like in your 8th grade arithmetic class when you get called to the front to demonstrate statistics do you like sketch a picture of a fake black crime chart you found on /pol/ because the 19y/o who posted it sounded really mature and used cool edgy words?

>>8262286
It means y'all need to drop some acid and change your genders every couple of hours since evidence of abuse is funny to you. You know you wanted your elderly neighbor to rape you the moments u laid eyes on them because you were the kid that ran around the neighborhood naked and then wondered why everyone sexualized you. Please go to Planned Parenthood and take the death by dignity cocktail since the 'science' is settled that after you die you can be as sexually perverted as your heart desires in hell.

>>8262306
Ah, so just trolling. Carry on my friend. You're really "red-peeling" us "normies"!

>>8262306
Wow that's really dank. Can I quote you in my upcoming montage parody?
>>8262302
We vary between being pretty close and hating each other and constantly bickering and being catty towards each other.

>>8262323
Why do you want people to red-pee on you? I guess the shit-eater was too busy to see you today so you had to go on recon and accept red-pee fetishists in their place.

>>8262324
Have you guys discussed what happened?

>>8262353(you)

>>8262270
Then link them cunt! Da fuq u need an invite for? Fags be fucking stupid and this is proof. You still are on the side that advocates to have adults have sex with kids so linking breeder perverts only makes my case stronger but you're to drunk on liberal talking points to even be taken for serious. You should have been aborted that way your mom would be empowered. She made the wrong choice and isn't empowered and it's all your fault and you can easily fix it by killing yourself using death by dignity drug cocktails because as an obedient liberal lemming you always do as you are told without ever thinking. Lol, liberals like you are so retarded it is funny to see you advocate for NAMBLA while pretending you're really not into allowing those who want to have sex with kids do so because it is mean or something to deny someone sexual feelings. LMFAO!

>>8262379
Wew.

>>8261258
>Desires are either biological or psychological in character, they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.

yeah you are retarded and don't know anything about evolution. Biologically necissary is a product of your environment, for example if you are in a high stress environment that can kill you at any time, it helps to blow off the steam and if you are attracted to dudes you can do that without resulting in children (albiet so can straight poeple with blowjobs). this is a biologically necissary activity now because it helps you to survive.
Furthermore, having glasses is not biologically necessary, they are artificial and prevent your evolutionary traits from meaningfully being affected by the outside environment. Not only is being gay quite easily biologically necessary from an extraordinary wide angle of reasons (but not all of them just like every single evolution trait INCLUDING having children). but having a system where by something not biologically necissary but never the less increases quality of life does not necissarily produce a bad thing, as glasses can help you see even if your vision is awful, this wreaks havoc on our genes but I don't see a long list of right wing nut jobs suggesting people with a certain extreme prescription of glasses cannot have children.

>>8262198
other person provides the obvious slaying blow that this bullshit is anecdotal, but more importantly, I still have yet to hear any piece of evidence that shows that the life of an orphan results on average better than having two gay parents. You are doing nothing right now but dodging the question because you know you either don't have the answer or don't care about it, prefering a potential worse life for children simply to avoid giving gay people rights.

>>8262261
I suggest you look up what an anecdote is, preferably after retaking high school biology

>>8262386
I don't see any links so I guess that means that gays flamed out as usual. Faggots have the attention span that doesn't even last an entire bareback ass fucking. You make fags look even fuckin gayer than before! You go guurl! Or whatever invented gender you feel at any given moment.

>>8262403
>I suggest you look up what an anecdote is, preferably after retaking high school biology
I suggest you empower your biological birthing vessel and kill yourself at the nearest Planned Parenthood since you're gay retardation is off the charts!

>>8262367
Nope. Happened once when I was rather tiny, sometimes I cry thinking about it and wondering why the fuck she did that, but the memory is like in a weird place for me where it was terrible and I'm too ashamed to ever talk about it, but also it wasn't traumatic enough for me to like make a thing about it. I've never mentioned it to anyone outside of the internet.
>>8262379
God fucking damn you MEME on those fucking liberals. Haha MEME MAGIC(lol get it like pepe)!!!!!1!!!!1! I'm sure glad me and you are a part of this alt-right movement together,I really look up to people like you and being part of this political movement really makes me feel more mature than the other 14 year olds at school.

>>8262414
wow.

someone should screen caption this shit

This isn't intended to be a bait thread, but I know it'll feel like that anyway. Pic related.

But why do you think homosexuality is good? It's clearly not going to result in a child, and I would even go so far as to say that having adopted children as a faggot couple should be discouraged because of the obvious psychological detriments.

What do you say to this fags? I'll discuss nicely and I won't be rude. I want to know what your thoughts are.

>>8262367
Gays hate everyone, especially each other. It shows in how shitty gays treat one another and they have an entire industrial media complex that parrots anything on their behalf like the good little unthinking lemmings they are. To pretend that being gay is anything other than the cruel cosmic joke it really is means you will fall for anything since you stand for nothing. All it takes is one tweet to change everything about your belief system because you place being one of the cultural 'cool kids' above being a human being.

>>8262406
Wew
E
W

>>8262306
>>8262379
>>8262406

See everyone? THIS is why education reform is so important. It really is THE MOST important thing we should be focusing on.
Some day this dumbass might actually have kids, and if we don't get control of education and deprogram these poor kids, they are going to grow up just as fucktarded, and the cycle will continue.

>>8262441
it actually isn't. for no other reason than education reform is never going to be something we can agree on, we need in order of importance the following.

Eliminate first past the post representation and replace with something less shit
Proliferation of nuclear energy
economical fusion technology

>>8262456
>for no other reason than ______ is never going to be something we can agree on

fill in the blank and invalidate everything
it's not really a valid criticism

>>8262441
Someday you might actually kill yourself using the liberal 'death by dignity' method and the world will be made safer and cooler with one less liberal asshole in it who believes that global warming isn't an invention of the political elites to control population. All the 'science' of 2017 states that it's cool and harmless to eat death by dignity pills after declaring your newly minted gender as a womanly-duck-like figure that has a T-Rex tail fetish since you find fisting so vanilla.
Good thing you wont have kids since being a liberal you have to tell the person you fuck to abort the clump of cells you helped create because she might regret throwing her life away and it would be all your fault forcing your patriarchy on her like that! Shame on you for not being 110% pro-choice even when it comes to your offspring. Fags can't have kids and the one that pretend they can be a mommy are fucking retarded. Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is all the evidence anyone needs that it shouldn't be done and shame on her for not aborting herself for the global cooling cause celebs and liberal reatrds like yourself posit.

>>8262487
it is a valid criticism actually because dealing with a tug of war rope is a waste of time. better to fix the things we can. Nuclear energy, economic fusion, and first past the post, are all ideas that have enough support to be non partisan and be implamented. the only way we can get that to happen though, is to get morons like you to drop the rope of the lost cause that you emotionally feel as more important than something like the lifeblood of our civilization, or more even representation among the population.

>>8262501
wow you are so polite, great thread OP.

>>8262501
It's pretty obvious at this point that someones poor demented grandpa listened to his favorite conservative conspiracy talk radio show where "death by dignity cocktails" were the topic of the day, and then took an extra dose of his brain meds with a swig of cheap whiskey.

It's really sad that conservatives are fighting so hard against the kind of healthcare that could help poor old folks like this live with the dignity and care they need.

>>8262456
>Remodelling the Constitution is going to be more achievable than remodelling education

Confirmed for being an idiot.

>>8262511
>Nuclear energy, economic fusion, and first past the post, are all ideas that have enough support to be non partisan and be implamented.
you must live on a different planet from mine.
here on earth, people think nuclear is toxic while others are still fighting for fucking coal mining, and you can barely jump through the hoops required to vote at all for a representative that very likely won't get a fucking thing done much less expect them to fundamentally change how they got into office in the first place.

>the only way we can get that to happen though, is to get morons like you to drop the rope of the lost cause that you emotionally feel as more important than something like the lifeblood of our civilization, or more even representation among the population.
good luck getting "morons" like me to do anything when we're all too stupid to understand what the fuck youre talking about thanks to our shitty education that indoctrinates us to accept the status quo.

>>8262548
Typical liberal. Death is 'care'. LMAO! It's really sad seeing liberals tell everyone who believes in nothing and falls for anything that anytime you have a hurt feeling or a bad day you're only one 'compassionate' drug cocktail away from 'care'. I bet you are convinced that abortion is awesome and doesn't kill a potential human being or wreck the health of the biological birthing vessel since it's 'settled science'. LMFAO. Liberals couldn't be any more stupid. Please, you must kill yourself as the latest liberal fad is climate change and you taking up resources is bad so please do what liberals tell you and get your death by dignity drugs asap since the world will 'literally end' if people stop having abortions and won't take their 'compassionate' lethal drug cocktail.

>>8262516
You didn't argue that the typical liberal is into fisting and to be extra edgy you added a T-Rex tail so you can really open up your pooper.

>>8262578
if only this poor old soul wasn't anonymous, we would know who and where he is so we could call someone to help him.

>>8262578
Please go away no one cares you redneck poorfag.
Don't you have some beans to eat out of a can or something?

>>8262593
I think its actually some kind of bot. It keeps repeating the same phrases over and over in weird barely-literate combinations.
A real person would have more variations in their vocabulary.

>>8262602
No.
That's what a West Virginia hick sounds like.

>>8262586
if only you would do as your liberal politician overlords told you to you would be dead and doing your part for 'global cooling'. So, go on, get your death by dignity drug cocktail paid for with California state tax dollars.

>>8261135
This entire point of view rides on the basis that childbearing and child-raising are objectively good and desirable. I'd say that homosexuality is good for me (regardless if whether you take the stance on inherent or chosen sexuality) because I don't like children and don't want them.

>>8262639
Not even, it just implies childbearing is the only right way to contribute to society.

/pol/ just thinks this because they think continuing the white race is paramount to your existence. I personally think adoption can be great but they think that's a form of cuckolding because they are *really* your kids.

>>8262557
>implying the remodelled education will be any better with our broken political system

confirmed for being a retard

>>8262577
you must also be on a different planet from me, nuclear does not have a worse rep than coal, and yes changing how representation works would be easier, because everyone conservative or not will answer yes to this question: Do you want someone to be in office to represent your views even when your opponents have 51% of the vote in your area and thus "won" the election? do you think representation should be a contest, or should the people voted into office be in a ration that would best represent the number of people who voted for them?

File: 16546767.jpg (465KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1500x1100px

>>8261135
>tfw gay
>keep it to myself
>hold hands with my bf in public
>thousands of homophobes are shitposting through my life telling me its bad and i shoukd kms
>its my fault for provoking hetereosexuals
sorry

>>8262673
>implying the remodelled education will be any better with our broken political system
By definition passing a normal law is easier to do than pass a fucking Constitutional amendment

Please learn about the US legislative branch before you pretend you have a great understanding of it.

>>8262673
> because everyone conservative or not will answer yes to this question

stupid people won't understand what the fuck that question even means.
and the people in power who purposely defund and fuck up education, specifically to keep those stupid people stupid and raising more stupid people to continue voting them into power, only have to say the world "communism" to get them to answer with a big fat NO.

>>8262719
>tfw gay
>keep it to myself
>bf lives in a different house
>never sleeps over
>don't have physical contact ever
>never take him on dates
>never make it known we're dating
>pretend we're just casual friends
>one day talk to him
>hold eye contact a fraction of a picosecond longer than is allowed
>homophobes drag us through the streets
>cut off our heads, shit down out throats and toss our shit stained corpses from the tallest rooftops in town
>it's my fault for provoking the heterosexuals
I too am sorry.

>>8262738
Depends on whether or not you count judicial activism as amendments.

>>8262940
>The supreme Court interpreting the very clearly defined presidential electoral system outlined in the Constitution as a more complicated proportional representation system

While a few court cases have the same magnitude as amendments, even the most "activist" ruling is based on precedent and ambiguity of text.

>>8262966
>even the most "activist" ruling is based on precedent and ambiguity of text.
Nah.

>>8262987
>Inb4 a political rant about how the constitutional right of "privacy" was a tool of the Jews to abort white babies.

Just because you don't bother to read briefs doesn't mean they don't detail their logic extensively and never does that detail include "so I just made this shit up and went against the (((((obvious))))) meaning of the Constitution"

>>8261135
i like cum

>>8262996
Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989, executing persons with mental retardation is constitutional.
Aktins v Virginia, 2002, executing persons with mental retardation is unconstitutional.

What precedent and ambiguity in the Constitution magically appeared in the 90's

>>8263035
>What precedent "magically" appeared in 13 years of law being practiced
Probably a whole fucking lot of precedents. I'm thinking you may not know what that word means.

>Constitutional ambiguity
If every set of justices agreed, it wouldn't be ambiguous, would it?

population control in an overpopulated world


gay penguins adopt orphaned chicks, similar concept

>>8263118
>thinking precedent means overturning previous decisions
>says other people don't know what the word means

>says rulings aren't "I just made this shit up"
>defends how ever justice has a different opinion

>>8263134
>thinking precedent means overturning previous decisions
No, but certainly situations where that happens while using certain arguments are certainly precedents. I mean, I don't know how you can argue this. Precedent law is literally all about how certain things have been ruled in the past, and they are in no way set in stone.


>>says rulings aren't "I just made this shit up"
>>defends how ever justice has a different opinion
So you also don't know what "ambiguity" means, huh?

It'll never cease to amaze me that the people who hate the SCOTUS never bother to either actually read ANY of their briefs, even the summaries, or ever bother learning how the US justice system works outside of watching Law and Order SVU.

You don't like the court having power to make decisions. That's fine. But their decision making isn't arbitrary regardless of what you think, and they release pages and pages and pages explaining every step in their thought process every time they make a decision to prove it.

>>8263207
>and they release pages and pages and pages explaining every step in their thought process
And every line is pure truth from the mouth of God with not an ounce of arbitrary opinion over three hundred years of history.

>>8263221
Well no, Anon. And in fact the dissenting justices also publish pages and pages of counter arguments the majority makes. The point is that they aren't arbitrarily making shit up like Congress and the President do. They're still humans, so no, they are not infallible, but they are far, far, far closer to an agenda-less political arm than anybody in the US. If you think they're making shit up, then you can read their brief and actually point to WHERE you think they are. Doing that would be a great discussion and a way to further dialogue on complex issues. What you've been doing however is going "well that don't seem right to me on first glance so they must be making shit up", and that is not a rebuttal, nor is it a reason to despise an arm of government.

At this point you have to be either intentionally obtuse or in denial.

If you hate SCOTUS because they concentrate power too much for your liking, that's valid, but pretending they're not bounded into narrower policy making and beholden to more precise justification than the fucking Congress is absurd.

File: soccer.moms.gif (31KB, 486x339px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 486x339px

>>8261135
>not going to result in a child,

implying there aren't enough people on earth already.

>>8263248
>The point is that they aren't arbitrarily making shit up like Congress and the President do.
Congress and the President have actual reasons for their policies.

SCOTUS get to keep their motives entirely secret by simply picking, arbitrarily and without public recourse or any need to justify themselves, whether to cast their vote for this opinion or that one.

>If you think they're making shit up, then you can read their brief and actually point to WHERE you think they are.
The exact point where they put their name to one brief and not another.

>pretending they're not bounded into narrower policy making and beholden to more precise justification
Name one limit to their power. If they're so bounded there should be plenty.

Congress and the President have loads of limits. But you can't name one decision the SCOTUS can't make.

>>8261147
I also encourage adoption, but the problem is that the people making the most babies are the people least suited to doing so, which is why places like Sweden and Denmark now have a decreasing population and Africa and India don't. This means that in many cases (not all) the babies have weaker genetics or an increased likelihood of being sickly and ill and even have degenerate tendencies. Knowing that I'd much rather just have my own children and probably end up loving them more

>>8261160
Hitler was the reason that there's satellites in space providing your internet which you now just use to shitpost....moron

>>8263271
>Name one limit
Okay.
>Amendments > court rulings
>US Marshalls the only enforcement SCOTUS has, the rest of the government can simply ignore them if it disagrees, as the South did following Brown v Board
>As FDR threatened to do when the court struck down his laws, Congress can simply expand the bench, allowing them to seat more favorable justices
>The Court's power can always be lessened if it failed to have the faith of the population
Luckily for the court most people aren't like you and have more faith in the SCOTUS than any other branch.

The court is extremely careful to pick cases that won't result in controversial rulings one way or another, with obvious miscalculations and exceptions to point to.

The court has had the same amount of power since the fucking Jefferson administration and hasn't tried to consolidate it yet, which cannot at all be said for the executive which has only increased in power steadily for the past 220 years.

But oh well. You don't like them because they're not clearly limited. That's a valid complaint. It's just that the reason theyve exercised such restraint relative to the rest of the branches over their history isn't because we've just been lucky with a bunch of selfless justices. It's because the very nature of the court means it only becomes relevant to policymaking on select occasions.

>>8261166
are you retarded? The word "black" (or any other ethnicity-related word for that matter) doesn't appear once in that report

>>8263322
>SCOTUS is limited by the possibility of revolution or a coup
...

Kinda proving my point here. Congress and the President have actual legal limits.

>The court is extremely careful to pick cases that won't result in controversial rulings one way or another, with obvious miscalculations and exceptions to point to.
I'm sure this decision-making isn't arbitrary either.

>The court has had the same amount of power since the fucking Jefferson administration and hasn't tried to consolidate it yet,
Hard to get more power than "unlimited unless there's a resolt".

>which cannot at all be said for the executive which has only increased in power steadily for the past 220 years.
Courtesy of the SCOTUS.

>You don't like them because they're not clearly limited.
Not even something I said.

>it only becomes relevant to policymaking on select occasions.
Obergefell.

>>8263320
>Hitler invented satellites

KYS

>>8261242
The operative word being "If". Why is it that the most vocal "moral" responses always seem to come from those least suitable to do so. The original post prompts a fair discussion, how can you have a coherent discussion when you purposefully misread/misunderstand each other? This does not solve any problems, quite the contrary in fact. That being said, I like your point about promiscuity, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, it forms part of our psychological needs in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we just aren't taught that by our conservative schools

>>8263359
>Revolution or coup
How did I imply that? If people began hating the court, their congressmen would begin hating the court, and they would then limit the Court's power.

The court is limited by having an extremely precarious position of power protected by nothing but precedent.

>I'm sure this decision-making isn't arbitrary either
It isn't, and the cases they choose are predictably "ripe" for the picking. There are books and books written on this. I'm not going to give you an entire freshman year intro to the court class.

>Hard to get more power than "unlimited unless there's a resolt".
See above.

>Courtesy of the SCOTUS
Not sure how the SCOTUS is responsible for the expansion of the bureaucracy. Unless you're arguing they should have struck it down as being unconstitutional using the very irrational and arbitrary decisionmaking you're against.

>Not even something I said
So then what do you think of the SCOTUS, exactly?

>Obergefell
>Consistently refused to take on same sex marriage cases for years until gay marriage support surpassed 50%
But moreover, I'm not sure how that isn't an example of a "select occasions". If anything it's the exact type of select occasions I'm referring to.

>>8261256
"this is a statistical fact from the UK government"...."newscientist.com"....you can't give someone gripe about having a shitty source and then you use an even worse one. That site has had several article removals and a lot more that are questionable. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions, don't be a sheep.....here is a good start: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics
....and sorry if it doesn't match what you're saying, it wasn't modified to do that

Hello LGBT people

this is the first time i went on /lgbt/ (i was curious) so i just read around and saw what people have to say and

what the actual fuck..... -_-

i've considered becoming gay myself but after seeing how hateful and defensive the /lgbt community is towards almost everyone who isn't part of them (this might not be the case, but in my experience it has) and i've concluded i'm much better off just having a girlfriend and only dealing with her shit

like seriously....come on....it's as if your brains switch off when you get into an arguement. i don't want to be represented by people who refuse to listen to each other and whip out garbage as legible sources to try and get their point accross

can't you do something better with your lives than sit and get angry at people on the internet?....jesus

>>8263365
The V-2 rocket was a Nazi invention, Herman von Braun who designed the first space-capable rocket launcher was a Nazi working for NASA after WW2, and best of all, they made fanta....get educated moddafokka

>>8263421
>How did I imply that?
By saying the limits to the court are its ability to enforce its law.

>It isn't,
I bet.

>expansion of the bureaucracy
Strawman, you said power not bureaucracy.

>So then what do you think of the SCOTUS, exactly?
It was the reasoning for my dislike that you incorrectly assumed.

>until gay marriage support surpassed 50%
Cool, you admit the SCOTUS have taken it upon themselves to replace democracy with their own decisions, with opinion polls for elections.

File: oy.png (35KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x250px

>>8263574
>Jews Wuz Kangz

Oy Vey

>>8263552
>i've considered becoming gay

are you retarded

>>8263643
>By saying the limits to the court are its ability to enforce its law.
I said that was one limit, and I don't think I would describe the Mississippi public school systems' decision to ignore brown v board a "revolt"

>I bet
Great rebuttal.

>Strawman, you said power not bureaucracy
One of the primary reasons the executive is powerful is because of his unilateral authority over the fucking bureaucracy. What branch of government exactly did you think that fell under??

>Cool, you admit the SCOTUS have taken it upon themselves to replace democracy with their own decisions, with opinion polls for elections

>A lower court brings a case before you
>You job is to either rule with it, reject it, or rule against it
>You accept it because public support means it's "ripe" for the picking
>You do your fucking job. 5 of you rule one way, 4 the other
Yep. They destroyed democracy with that one for sure.

>>8261135
Eh my genes have a lot of schitzophrenia and other health issues. I've dodged a lot of bullets on the genetics front, I'd rather not reload the gun and point it at another kid. Even if I was straight, I wouldn't have kids of my own.

>>8263552
Don't let the door hit you on the way out sweetie!
:) x

>>8263313
Poor people have babies. Poor people commit crime.

Wealth is a more accurate determiner of the number of children and crime than any nationality, race or sex. Black people commit far more crime for example because black people are far poorer, not the other way around. Poor whites have identical levels of criminality as another example.

Rich people don't have many kids relative to poor trailer and ghetto trash.

File: 78659.png (60KB, 1689x345px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1689x345px

>>8263771
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

Citation if interested.