Children taken from racist homes and given to LGBT familys

>>8386714
Why would we want kids going to adoptive parents who will abuse them if they grow up to be fags?

>>8386728
At least they won't be Islamophobic or anti-gay

>>8386736
>Phobia
>Irrational Fear
>Considering Fear/Dislike of a theocratic ideology that puts LGBT people to death on a near daily basis to be irrational

>>8386768
not all Muslims are killers, bigot.

>>8386777
No, not all Muslims pull the trigger, swing the sword, or toss the gay off the building but they advocate for it, believe it should be done. And Bigot? Are you confusing ideology with race? Muslim butchery comes in all colors, the thing they have in common is Islam.

>>8386811
Stop replying to yourself.

>>8386736
I think you misunderstood me.

Anti-gay parents abusing their fag teenager is exactly what I was talking about. And by the way, Muslims are especially bad for that.

It's a pretty good way of pretty much shutting down bigotry. Instead of allowing the parents to brainwash them into hating others, they simply find better parents to replace them.

If government bodies aren't going to sterilize bigots, the least they could do is find better homes for the kids these bigots do birth.

>>8386820
Two people can't possibly have a disagreement? Ever?

>>8386866
No, it's really obvious when you constantly make dumb bait threads and pretend to be the opposition

How is this not thought policing?

Generally speaking as long as the child is well taken care of, he/she can be adopted by any family whether that family hates queers, believes we didn't land on the moon or thinks women's rights are actually real.

Treat adoption like education, Amish families for example are allowed to homeschool their children provided they receive decent care and educational material.

There's a huge shortage of parents willing to adopt throughout North America and telling them they can't have a new home and family because mommy doesn't like the L Word is stupid.

>>8386881
The hell you going on about?

>>8386890
>Generally speaking as long as the child is well taken care of
Which isn't the case in these situations. Your comment could have stopped there sweaty.

>>8386714

This law will end, when they try to take ahmed's nine children.

>>8386950
From what I understand only whites are targeted, muslims won't get their children taken bit can receive children, something about privilege.

>>8387090
Whites can be Muslim, too.

>>8386915
>smug
>libtard
>can't even spell the word "sweety"
I'd wager that conservative children are much more happy and well-adjusted than the children of leftists.

>>8386915

Is the government going to stop you from adopting children if you fat-shame people and post on an image board that's been linked to pedophilia?

>>8387090
It's telling that white and muslim are exclusive terms for you.

>>8386714
Well, considering the fact that shaming or punishing a achild for being gay or trans is unquestionably a form of child abuse (despite parent's "good intentions"), I see nothing wrong with this.

>>8387748
What if they're neither gay nor trans, just GNC.

>>8387384
not them, but the misspelling of the word "sweety/sweetie" as "sweaty" is a meme on tumblr

File: 4G+ fuck.jpg (31KB, 447x384px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 447x384px

>>8386714
This is a giant load of cryptic shit.

Of course, this government is out of control, we already know that.

I don't get how this is relate-able to stuff going on in Norway, here the United Church is a prolific social justice fist.

>>8387441
why would i want children

>>8386777
>Not all Muslims are killers.

Good point. At least two Islamist will be the ones actually executing you.
The rest of the town full of Muslims will just watch and cheer as you're thrown from a building.

>>8386843
>supporting thought crime laws.

You liberal faggots have got to go...

>>8390466
Yeah we should only have those laws for containing and battling le degeneracy XD

>>8386811
Bigotry isn't exclusive to race.

>>8390630
>muh strawman

>>8390466
>thought crime

This isn't a crime you idiot. They aren't sending these people to jail for holding an opinion, they're blocking people who are at risk for abusing children from adopting them. Being a pedo isn't illegal, but they aren't going to let pedophiles adopt kids because that creates an unacceptable risk for abuse. Being a religious bigot also isn't illegal, but they also aren't going to get religious bigots adopt kids because that creates an unacceptable risk for abuse.

>>8390670
Feminists are allowed to adopt kids despite the risk for abuse.

>>8390670
>discriminating against people who think wrong isn't punishing people for thought crimes

...and here's that legendary "liberal cognitive dissonance."

>>8390696
It's not discriminating against people who think wrong, it's discriminating against people who are at risk for abusing children from adopting children. Just because that sometimes overlaps with "thinking wrong" is irrelevant.

There are many examples of children being abused by their parents for being a different religion, being an atheist, being LGBT, etc, sometimes even being led to suicide.

>>8390679
If feminists are an abuse risk then I agree, they too should be barred from adopting kids. I have no idea if they actually are or not though, and if they are it doesn't mean the law is wrong for protecting kids from religious abuse, just that it should be expanded to protect children from political abuse as well.

Note that this law does not apply to Muslims, for cultural sensitivity reasons.

>>8390708
>judging people by their thoughts and not by their actions isn't thought crime law.

You just keep digging yourself deeper into that hole...

>>8390739
>doesn't apply to Muslims

This is why we need separation of church and state. Giving special privileges to certain religious groups is bullshit.

Which says nothing of the horrible irony and hypocrisy of not allowing a christian to adopt a child but allowing a muslim (known for murdering gays) to adopt an lgbt child.

File: gay-study-graph.jpg (113KB, 640x607px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 640x607px

Why do some braindead faggots in this thread think Christian parents are an overwhelming risk for abuse?
What about Jewish parents, who inflict permanent psychological trauma and PTSD-like symptoms through circumcision?
What about single mothers, renowned for their worthless parenting?
What about poor parents? How are dysgenics acceptable in the 21st century? Why are adopters and adoptees not IQ-tested and matched?

>>8390764
>but what about....

Fuck off. I believe this should should apply restrictions on adoption to those groups as well, yes, but just because this law fails to meet that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the law at all.
Also
>supporting eugenics

>>8390779
K. I'm a misanthrope. Don't like all people, equally. Let's get rid of all them, yeah? I'll make a law saying we have to kill everybody, except only if they're Jewish. We'll get around to the others some day, maybe. Promise!
Works with you?
Either it's fair from the beginning, or fuck off with your crap law.

Have any stats backing up Christians being an abuse risk, retard?

>>supporting eugenics
No, you support eugenics. Dysgenics is eugenics, except with negative traits artificially promoted instead of positive traits. Why do you support eugenics?

>>8390764
>What about Jewish parents, who inflict permanent psychological trauma and PTSD-like symptoms through circumcision?
Muslim and American (and a minority of similar nationalities) also do that.

It's only done to boys anyway so they should still be allowed to adopt girls.

>>8390803
Sure. But isn't it silly to prevent adoption of boys from these groups because they'd get circumcised, when they're allowed to have kids of their own and would be able to do just that?
The government shouldn't have a say in who's fit to be a parent.

>>8390796
Religious beliefs and political ideologies are not genetic.

>>8390817
No, you'd just not allow them to keep the kids they have themselves.

File: 20121006_STC023.png (25KB, 290x317px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 290x317px

>>8390819
Wrong, and doesn't address my point.

>>8390839
Doesn't cover religion.

>>8390843
Heard of Google?

>>8390863
Heard of burden of proof?

This is actually awesome.

I can't wait for the day when we have open season on nazis.

>>8386714
Sounds good to me. Get the kids away from those poisonous influences.

>>8392666
Nazis.
Show me a single real Nazi in Canada...

>>8396147
Who is Jordan Peterson?
What is Rebel Media?
...

>>8396149
>everyone who disagress with me is a Nazi

Typical liberal...

>>8392666
that is the day you are the nazi
trips

>>8396153
If you defend nazis, you are a nazi.

File: weshould-respect-the-nazis-right-to-freespeech-if-not-youre-12953034.png (196KB, 500x1214px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 500x1214px

>>8396156
>(You)

>>8396170
>blah blah blah I am authoritarian asshole scared of nazi

>>8396181
>A nazi calling an anarchist authoritarian.

I guess now I've seen it all.

File: ib4.jpg?w=500&h=300.jpg (47KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x334px

>>8396181
Also
>scared

Bring them nazis on. I still ain't got my one hundred nazi scalps.

File: 1477108053487s.jpg (5KB, 250x213px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x213px

>>8386881

>>8386736
>/lgbt/ isn't Tumb-

>>8396198
Modern anarchists are pretty much in the camp of authoritarianism

>>8396149
>Rebel Media
>Nazi

?

>>8387384
>>can't even spell the word "sweet"
LOL
dumbfuck
/thread

File: 64510671.jpg (35KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x375px

>>8396525

File: marcos.jpg (61KB, 700x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x450px

>>8396525
I'm not sure how to feel about this statement.

File: this place.png (302KB, 952x872px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 952x872px

Ugh, this bizarre claim is getting mentioned over and over all the time now. And no one's even bothering to point out anything that actually says something like that. They're just hanging on a few pages that "interpret" it for those that need something to get irate about. And it's hard how they're interpreting it, when it just seems to have a few sections basically like this

:

"
The paramount purpose of the Act — to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children — remains unchanged from the current Act.

The additional purposes of the Act are expanded to include the following:

To recognize that services to children and young persons should be provided in a manner that respects regional differences wherever possible and takes into account,
physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons;
a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression; and
a child’s or young person’s cultural and linguistic needs.
"

>>8398967
>that pic
So butthurt.

>>8399015
Totally apt in response to that extremely persistent reaction.

>>8399274
I don't know what you're referring to. You didn't quote any posts...

>>8399286
I didn't quite any post, because it's in response to this thread, this very regularly posted thread. Even beyond this thread, it's being used to derail other threads too.