Should gays be allowed to adopt? Thoughts?

It's not the most desirable situation but, if I had to be honest, I'd rather the kid have someone who could care for him instead of growing up in an orphanage.

>>129176918
No. Higher rates of "divorce", no normal family role model, higher rates of mental illnes, degenerate behaviour, child molestation and undesirable social interactions.

Fags should not adopt, most of them are just as destructive as single mothers, although homosexual women are even worse.

Better invest in good orphanages and don't make it so fucking hard for normal people to adopt.

>>129176918

Nope. If homos were meant to have kids they would get pragnent and poop them out.

>>129177810
This, I'm sure foster parents are screened for history of mental illness or abuse and a thorough background check is done before they're allowed to adopt. It doesn't matter if they're gay as long as they raise the child normally, without forcing their beliefs on them, which can happen regardless of whether a couple is gay or straight, e.g: https://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/30319/my-wife-wants-a-homosexual-child, an example of a straight couple with a batshit crazy woman.

>>129178074
source for any of that?
I've seen studies that suggest the opposite:
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

>>129178853
>lgbt equality site
>objective

Yes, but you woill have to take a Polack by his words as I don't have a source dump for this topic. It's just my mental collection of all kind of differnt facts I've come across under consideration of peer reviewed studies and as objective as can be sources (most had other main findings, as direct studies about possible negative outcomes obviously would not get funded, just like with race realism).

And I don't hate fags, they are mostly more intelligent than hetero men and have done much for society and that's also why it would be better if they would at least try to fuck women and get their genes on instead of embracing their hedonism. They can still have a sidefag.

>>129178230
Homosexuality IS a mental illness.

>>129178853
But consider that homosexuality is most likely the result of a chemical inblalance in the brain to the prenatal development and early childhood (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28374065) and was only deemed not a psychological defect due to social pressure (not scientific psychiatric facts), so that we should not consider it normal nor healthy. It might not be as bad as eg Schizophrenia or stuff like that, but just because you can be high functioning doesn't mean you should promote such a lifestyle and rear children in it - as you wouldn't let people with autism, which will no matter how hard they try give at least a big part of their lifestyle on, simply because kids evolved to copycat their parents and eldars.

A child need both genders to grow up healthy and to know how to interact which each one. It's just as bad as letting boys grow up in a system where they rarely even see a male figure (single mother, female teachers, females coworkers, etc). Those boys get feminzed and have psychological deficits (see nearly all Moly-Meme stats). The same will be true about male-only envoirements and those which are mostly lgbt instaed of "normal".

It's not possible to rear children in a different way to which you life. And we don't need more kids thinking about transitioning because it's cool.http://www.dailywire.com/news/15404/gender-expert-says-teens-are-becoming-transgender-amanda-prestigiacomo

With restrictions.
I'd say they're only allowed Retards and downies, they can even take niggers if they like. But apart from that, then no, it's not normal.
I've always wondered what happens in a gay household when the kid shouts dad, does it cause a tear in the very fabric of the universe?

>>129180225
>A child need both genders to grow up healthy and to know how to interact which each one.
Won't most of this interaction occur at school anyway? Female teachers, female students and male students to interact with. Having one extra male parent shouldn't make a difference in terms of interacting with the opposite gender.

And anyway, you're assuming that every male parent will exhibit male characteristics and every female parent will exhibit female characteristics, but in reality one parent might be more feminine than the other regardless of sexual orientation.

>>129180683
>Won't most of this interaction occur at school anyway?

Use your fucking brain. There is no substitute for your parental figures. Cut this fucking critical theory shit out.

>>129180683
>Won't most of this interaction occur at school anyway?

There is a great qulity difference between a teacher which has to deal with 30x6-8 kids a day and your parents which actually should care for you and give you moral and intimite support. Otherwise it would be enought to just give a kid a TV and let it learn how humans work. How should a young boy learn how a good women behaves if he doesn't have a rolemodell at home? Why do you think so many young men don't know how to find good wifes? Because they have grow up in single mother households and only learned how trashy women are. They same will be probably the case in male-only households. You can't just take away the father nor the mother and think the kid will get it somewhere else.

>And anyway, you're assuming that every male parent will exhibit male characteristics and every female parent will exhibit female characteristics

Yeah, that's what functioning households do. Sexual rolemodels are there for a reason. Nearly all females want to be housewifes (see the growing dissatisfaction with more and more woemn working/ more feminism) and most men want be a provider (see also that still most women want a men being more succsesfull then them and this is harder and harder as women can study and earn more and more - women get more and more unhappy).

That's simply how humans evolved, most outliers have chemical inbalances or where indoctrinated. That's it. And that'S also why our societies fail, broken people rear broken kids, which will themself get broken children.

(1/2)

>Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
>Have lower educational attainment
>Report less safety and security in their family of origin
>Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
>Are more likely to suffer from depression
>Have been arrested more often
>If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

>Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
>Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
>Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
>Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
>Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
>Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
>Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
>Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
>Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
>Use marijuana more frequently
>Smoke more frequently
>Watch TV for long periods more frequently
>Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

(2/2)

>It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

>Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

>Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%).

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

>>129182336
>>129182372

Consider those are meta-studies which are are summary of all we know while also showing the bias in the previous ones. The results also match our social outcomes.

Also it's note worthy that people with higher numbers of sexual partners are less likely to remain in a stable relationship. This means having gay parents will drasticly lessen your chances of getting children (healthy children in a marriage) yourself.

>>129176918
Gay adoption is their primary method for creating more fags. So no.

>>129179308
Based Jap

>>129182893
As stupid as it sounds, that's actually the case.
It's like the "foreigners take away our jobs"-meme, which is actually true if you read into the job market, wage dumping and effects of immigration on welfare.

Gays should not have children.

/thread

>>129176918

no. it deprives a child of either a mother or a father.

File: faggots-at-pride-parade.jpg (70KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x540px

>>129176918
>putting vulnerable children under the custody of mentally ill deviants

How about.....no

>>129182893
>>129183077
Do you think the majority of gays have gay parents? Man you guys are stupid.

File: 7ac.jpg (12KB, 260x194px)

12KB, 260x194px

>>129183333
checked

>>129183358
>Do you think the majority of gays have gay parents? Man you guys are stupid.

Of course not, she the study about hormonal effects on human sexuality, but gay parents tend to create children which tend to be very unsure about their sexuality even without prenatal exposure - which should be considered child abuse.

File: fagsmolestkids.png (176KB, 1584x2016px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1584x2016px

>>129176918

No, if they adopt a boy they will obviously rape and molest him. (Youtube search "The Boy With The Henna Tattoo" to get an idea of what I'm talking about.)

If they adopt a girl they won't rape her but they will still expose her o all kinds of degeneracy and be a really terrible male figure in her life which will seriously fuck up her future relationships with men.

Homosexuality itself should just be made illegal. Obviously it will still go on behind closed doors but criminalizing it will force fags to keep it there and prevent them from ever getting any foothold. Gays need to stay in the closet.

File: 1488694409700.jpg (74KB, 1096x746px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1096x746px

>>129176918
Gays shouldn't be allowed outside of mental wards anon.

who would want to adopt a homo

File: 1496353508597.jpg (78KB, 455x427px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 455x427px

>>129183336
I threw up
Alot
Fucking sick fucks

File: gay-pride-parade-utah.jpg (4MB, 3000x2053px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x2053px

>>129183358
>be an impressionable young child
>look up to parents because they know everything
>daddy talks about sucking dicks all day and brings home strange men

People develop sexual fetishes when they're young, homosexuality is no different. Most gays turned out that way because they were abused as children.

I think being gay doesnt have anything to do with it.

Being a fucking degenerate should disqualify you. There are plenty of gays who are completely normal.

There are only lots of straight couples who are completely degenerate and should never be allowed near kids.

>>129183551
Is forcing gays to pretend to be straight any better though? You'll end up having a bunch of guys marrying women they don't love, which would result in broken homes.
I say keep homosexuality legal, but don't allow them to adopt or make public displays.

File: AP_111835182005.jpg (55KB, 512x317px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 512x317px

What did they mean by this /pol/?

File: adoption.jpg (153KB, 412x567px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 412x567px

>>129183857
>There are plenty of gays who are completely normal.

Lol no. By definition homosexuals cannot be normal.

File: gay pride New York02.jpg (93KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x667px

Is he, dare I say.../our kid/?

>>129184088

Homosexuality is normal in nature. Acting like a fucking faggot isn't.

>>129184005
>Is forcing gays to pretend to be straight any better though?

They simply will not be able to make such degenerate "pride" parades and marry. They will still know how to hock up and fuck each other. Nothing will change for them, besides rights which have a negative effect on society.

They don't have to marry a woman, it's not like you get killed if you're not married by 30.

>>129183857
Pretty much this D E S U. Degenerates shouldn't be allowed to have kids period. Although i don't think geys should be allowed to adopt either way.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-09 at 6.59.59 AM.png (328KB, 484x705px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 484x705px

Heteronormativity BTFO

File: gaynazicomicdeviantart.png (1MB, 1040x4645px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1040x4645px

>>129184005

I'm not advocating that.

I just want to go back to a time when they had to tell everybody that they are bachelor roommates and we all pretended that we didn't know what that really meant.

Criminalization prevents them from organizing any gay rights groups in the first place. (Also if we get rid of the jews that will help that too, much of the leadership of the gay rights movement is made up of gay jews). If they try to protest or demand rights they will be jailed.

I'm not advocating cameras in bedrooms or cops kicking down people's doors.

Don't ask, don't tell. But of you do tell you go to fucking prison.

>>129184586
>Don't ask, don't tell.
This.

>>129176918
>>>129178230
>Homosexuality IS a mental illness.
This

>>129176918
NO!
As homosexual you have decided to extract yourself from the pool or reproduction. Therefore you have NOT earned the right to adopt a child!

It's completely different w/ hetero couples who have to struggle w/ infertility due to injury or other mishaps. OTOH, couples who willingly sterilised themselves and later start regretting it, shouldn't be eligable for adoption, too!


...what is it with the boatload of homo threads?

>>129177810
>I'd rather the kid be passed around as a fucktoy for faggots than have them live in an orphanage

That's how you sound.

>>129184586
People are going to start suspecting something if two unmarried men are hanging out together a lot past a certain age. Also, isn't "bachelor roommates" pretty much telling? Why not just criminalize gay rights groups? Sodomy laws seem a bit much.

>>129176918
shouldnt even be allowed to breathe

>>129185329
NIGGER

>>129185409
eager

File: gayiconicduo.png (388KB, 554x626px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 554x626px

>>129185202

I'm basing it off of what has actually happened.

We had that system for years and everything was fine. It was illegal to be gay but nobody hunted them down or anything.

Then it became legal to be gay. And in a few short decades they have total control over the pop culture and it is almost illegal to not support them. In America the only thing stopping the govt from throwing me in jail for typing this is the 1st Amendment.

File: faggot parents2.jpg (84KB, 960x468px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x468px

>>129176918

>>129185654
Give them a hand and they chop off your whole arm.

>>129185654
no it was not fine you fucking retard it was horrible to be gay in those times and thousands of people did get arrested for it.

>>129176918

No.

>>129185996
So, don't go fuck in degenerate locations with your hommies. Nobody has been arrested only for being with a men at home. They all come from asking normal people to fuck them in pubs.

Go cry somewhere else stupid faggot and stop believing those LBGT boogeymen.

And I would also add that I would outlaw things like tinder or hock up bars at all. It's degenerate and ruins society.

File: 1465100497963.png (435KB, 774x447px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 774x447px

>>129185996
Could've been worse faggot, you're welcome.

>>129186249
Yes, they were. People would be persecuted even if they were under the suspicion of being gay. You have no fucking idea how it was then. kys.

>>129185744

Yeah pretty much. I realized there was never going to be a point in time when all these LGBT groups said "We are done. We are finally equal. Close up shop, everybody go home. We have enough rights." It will never, ever, ever end with them because they are fundamentally inferior to us and on some level they know it. So they will constantly demand more rights to feel equal, but it will never satisfy them because they are not equal, so they will demand even more rights and so on. Maybe they will stop if artificial wombs are created and they can actually make life. Otherwise I see no end to it.

>>129185996

I'm not going to claim that everything was perfect and there were no abuses but most of those gays were arrested for having orgies in clubs and bath houses. How often were the cops kicking down bedroom doors?

>>129186654
It's not like they were always catching them in the act but people talked especially back then and people knew and when they knew they would be harassed by the law and the people.

>>129186519
Ze women were CATTLE back then, you have no idea how much oppression we faced REEEE

You're hazard for society, that's just what it is. The only times you did get fucked up was if you behaved in a way your community has demed you a danger for them. Behave like a straight good persoon and nobody would care - and don't fucking come back at me with those 2-3 times some nednecks smashed some gay prositutes.

kys

>>129186919
Almost no gay people acted fem because people would know. I'm not gay I just recognize that it was fucked up.

>>129187144
It wasn't. It was what was the best for the majority and society at large. Now we played your wishes, given you all the rights and believed you that it's not a slippery slope - and look where we are. Kids get their genitals chopped of against the wish of their parents after indoctrinating them into LGBT shit.

The hand and the arm. You have showed yourself to not be a healthy part of society and onn contrary a danger for our children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmqNiFJyI28

File: fagspozz.jpg (693KB, 2184x1706px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 2184x1706px

>>129186832

Ok what you are talking about (police and other people harassing a person that they suspected was gay) is extra-legal activities. Not at all what I am talking about.

Gays molest children 30 times more than heterosexual couples. They should be shot in the head, not allowed custody of children.

>>129187391
No one who gets srs does it because of indoctrination, everyone who's willing to get that done do it because they have a severe mental illness and having a penis causes thems severe distress. And trans people have been around since that time.
You're a fucking retard with his head up his ass.

>>129176918
Of course.

File: comingoutstraight.jpg (237KB, 638x631px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 638x631px

>>129187391
>It was what was the best for the majority and society at large. Now we played your wishes, given you all the rights and believed you that it's not a slippery slope - and look where we are. Kids get their genitals chopped of against the wish of their parents after indoctrinating them into LGBT shit.

I agree 100%. All this tranny shit (and soon pedophilia and bestiality) is a result of that gay shit opening the door. We did not just wake up one day and start cutting our sons' dicks off. Getting to this point was a process. One that started by saying "It is ok to be gay".

>>129187804
>No one who gets srs does it because of indoctrination

Kids under 10y old get puberty blockers and get encuraged to change their sex, how do you think kids can actually learn what they want if their ingroup praises trannies and claims it's a-okay? EVen if the don't chop of their balls they fuck up their whole hormon household. AT this point you simply don't want to see the facts, fag.

>You're a fucking retard with his head up his ass.

>historical facts
>scientific facts
>social facts
>current year

Yeah, sure it's always those ebil nazi-frogs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4005772/Australian-child-5-born-male-approved-intersex-surgery.html

>Child, aged five, born genetically male will undergo intersex surgery to become a sterilised female after Family Court ruling

https://www.rt.com/news/391164-ontario-gender-identity-children/

>New Ontario law allows govt to seize children if parents oppose their ‘gender identity’

Nothing to see, goy. That's just love and tolerance. Don't be such a hateful bigot.

>>129176918

The most UNSUITABLE parents I have ever seen were 2 lesbian couples who both had kids.

I feel sorry for the kids to this day =(

>>129187952
Pedophilia is already on the march and the bestiality-fags already tried last year to get the animal rights changed due to their sexual orientation, so they can be able to fuck them.

They push and push and we give and give. This will never end. Somethey they will claim a right to fuck your dead grandmother.

>>129188106
Puberty blockers are completley reversable and they're only on them a short amount of time until they get old enough to get on hormones if they need them. And trans people can be perfectly normal people if they get treatment (are allowed to transition) and aren't encouraged to be a degenerate.
It's not gay/trans people pushing sjw shit, they're just another pawn of the jews.

>>129176918
No.....

>>129188810
>muh slippery slope
There are pretty obvious reasons why pedophilia will never be legalised.

>>129188260
That's an intersex child, She has a vagina but she also has testicles. They're just removing the testicals so she doesn't grow up to be a he-she freak. It's what they've always done.

>>129176918
Only blood relatives.

>>129188424
If a trans kid knows they're trans and can't transition because their parents are bigots and have to watch their body be destroyed they should be able to be put in the care of the state.

File: 1487264826633.jpg (90KB, 957x621px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 957x621px

>>129188831
>all that excuses why it's a-okay to give small kids hormon blockers

You know that nearly all kids grow out of this if not encouraged? It's a MENTAL ILLNESS. We should do everything to work AGAINST this. Just fucking look at the suicide rates if encouraged you fucking degenerate.

Good god, how can you not fucking see what you are promoting.


>>129189005
>There are pretty obvious reasons why pedophilia will never be legalised.

We have a party in german which makes our current school books which teach children to try and stick their fingers up their age (under 6 y old) and pictures adults doing it to little boys while being against child marriage. "it will never happen" is a fucking meme.

>>129188810
pedos have tried to latch onto the lgbt movment since the 60's. It's never worked and never will because everyone knows pedos are monsters.

>>129188810

> Somethey they will claim a right to fuck your dead grandmother.

YOU ARE A NECROPHOBE! APOLOGISE!

>>129189313
Yeah, and if they grow out of it they stop the blockers and are fine. And if they don't grow out of it and actually are trans they saved themselves a ton of anguish and suffering.

>>129189182
>their body will be destroyed

FFS NEARLY ALL CHILDREN GROW OUT OF IT but you will get fucked in the head after taking hormon blockers for years instead of going through puberty like a normal kid because your community thinks its fucking cool.

Just fucking end your life, anon. I'm not even memeing. Full seriousness kys.

>>129189313
No, you are actually retarded if you think that parents and society at large will allow that.

>>129189313
>Good god, how can you not fucking see what you are promoting.

I suspect that the person you are arguing with is either a homosexual or a tranny. That or it could be a family member. Maybe his brother is gay or he has two Moms.

Whatever it is, he has an emotional reason for refusing to accept reality.

>>129189489
Most children grow out of it, most never seek out blockers for it, and most never want it bad enough to go through the massive ordeal it is to actually get on them. This massivley helps the ones that actually are trans and has many many safeguards so that those who aren't don't fuck themselves up.

>>129176918
The entire point of marriage is for the children. IF gays are allowed to get marries, THEN they MUST adopt. Theyre marriage has to be useful.

>>129189635
It's already happening in germany.
Sadly no subtitles, maybe some anon can translate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jSOzUZ0mms

>>129180683
A kid would be ridiculed for having gay parents, and it could very well become a point of shame for them. But fuck what the kid might want, right?

>>129189724
>This massivley helps the ones that actually are trans and has many many safeguards so that those who aren't don't fuck themselves up.

No, as they will be simply given to most children which "feel" like the opposite gender instead of just letting them be children just because 0,02 percent of people have this mental illness which should be worked against and they should learn to accept their gender, instead of larping and killing themself.

>>129189840
I don't need to watch it to tell you it's not happening.

>>129189635

It used to be acceptable in Ancient Greece and Rome so I see no reason as to why it can't become acceptable here.

>Child sexuality is normal, natural and healthy. People only oppose it because of rigid, right wing residual Christian thinking that teaches that sex is icky. If the child consents it is ok. Blah blah blah

If shitlib parents are ok with cutting off their son's dick to virtue signal, I'm sure they would be ok with letting their son be sodomized if it is the "in" thing to do.

>>129189644
Yeah, I suspected that. He obviously doesn't really care for the real benefits or risks only for what he has been told is their "right" and simply overlooking the problems for not only society but even the people which are ill.

Giving in in their illusions is actually killing them at 20x the rate of normal people. Transition isn't working. We have to go 180° and give them such hormones that they will love their bodies again. That's the human way.

>>129189996
Not an argument. Everything your saying all comes down to "but what if some scenario I'm imagining in my head happens?" There is no basis in reality, it's just some backwards bullshit being scared of what he doesn't understand.
And transition is literally the only treatment for gender dysphoria. Nothing else works.

>>129190138
>says the kiwi to the native

Sure, just close your eyes. That will never happen. That's surely what they thought in the 60s.

>>129190196
You very obviously are talking out of your ass and know absolutley nothing about gender dysphoria if you think that.
Trans people have a higher suicide rate than normal people know matter what. It sucks to be them. But hormones massivley improve their quality of life and lower suicide risk from what it is without treatment.

>>129190274
>Everything your saying all comes down to "but what if some scenario I'm imagining in my head happens?"

Everything I said is grounded in facts. Just read the thread and what is happening. But YOU only bring feelings and claims that something will not happen or at least nothing really bad, without prove - on the contrary with direct opposite prove.

Seriously this discussion is over, you're disgusting human trash worthy of the ovens.

>And transition is literally the only treatment for gender dysphoria. Nothing else works.

Nothing else has been trying due to being "hateful" not to accept their illness. But there are experiments with hormon therapy which did work. Sadly I forgotten the name of the chemical.

It's absulutely possible, but (((someone))) doesn't want healthy people.

File: trans.jpg (29KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x500px

>>129190274
>And transition is literally the only treatment for gender dysphoria. Nothing else works.

There is no such thing as transition. In the future maybe there will be.

But right now the only thing they can do is mutilate your genitals and give you hormones.

>>129190525
You're speaking out of your fealings and simply don't want to accept that giving them male hormones would help them far more instead of trying to change their whole sex - which is impossible. Acceptance is death for them. You know nothing but hollow phrases and the propaganda of mentaly ill people.

But I'm not surpriced that you'Re the same kind of people promoting euthanasia for everyone willing to die. You've got depression? Don't work on it, just kill yourself, that tolerance.

>>129176918
Gays shouldn't be allowed to live, what makes you think they should be allowed to adopt?

>>129190618
You're a grade A idiot.
That's not how logic works. What you said doesn't really happen. "prove it can't" isn't a fucking argument. It's up to you to prove that what you say will happen will happen with evidence. All you have done so far is screech autisticly.
And yes people have tried everything to fix it. Before 40 years ago they just threw trans people in mental asylums and freely experimented on them.

>>129190896
Giving them testosterone when most of them already have normal testosterone won't do anything but make them want to kill themselves more.

File: Faggots.png (443KB, 1506x3976px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1506x3976px

I just posted a comment on a very old blog combatting "anti-gay bigotry". Here is the comment.

>>129191198
Amending definitions at your leisure, while backtracking when it inconveniences you. Pair that with an overinflation of homosexual demographics and you have a “great” case of intellectual dishonesty.

First of all, a heterosexual is defined as the following: (of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. Homosexual: (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex. Nowhere in the definition, or in any other interpretation, is there any indication as to the age. That is because the age of the individual is not in question. You cannot arbitrarily redefine the term to become whatever you please (persons who are middle-aged/elderly, young adults who are attracted to people of one’s own sex). Two attractions can coincide, because within the “heterosexual/homosexual” definitions, only sex is determined (opposite/same sex): not age. This is where broader terms like pedophilia (and ephebophilia, hebephilia, and pedohebephilia come into play) that actually deal with the age factor.

Of course, it is fallacious to claim the following: males commit the vast majority of sexual crimes against children. The majority of the victims are females. The remaining victims are males. Therefore, because the vast majority of predators are male and there are some victims who are also male, those predators are homosexual.

>>129191232
This is fallacious by the same logic you demonstrate above: confinement to a narrow dimension of analysis. The individual will not strictly be homosexual and nothing else, just as the predators in the example above may not necessarily be strictly attracted to male victims (they may also be attracted to female victims; in that case, they are bisexual pedophiles).

It will be more accurate to claim that the predators (who are majority male) will, more often than not, be at least homosexual (by the definition of the term), if not bisexual (or a combination of the other age-related terms I listed above).

This fallacious reasoning is demonstrated in your statement: If an adult male molests a boy, that is usually referred to as “homosexual molestation” simply because the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex. This terminology, however, leaves out the sexual orientation of the victim and perpetrator themselves.

First of all, both the victim and predator are, by definition, males. One is an adult male, the other is a ‘boy’. But they are both male. That is what the definition of homosexuality is concerned with, not age. That is where the second term comes into play (at least a pedophile, if not a, say, hebephile). Also, because it is non-consensual, the orientation of the victim is irrelevant.

>>129191261
“In this case, the sexual orientation of the predator was never mentioned or implied to be a reason for his crime.”
This seems more like a gripe with the culture than anything else. The phrasing is technically correct, as both a homosexual and a heterosexual pedophile are still pedophiles. But your real gripe should be with the lack of clarity in illustrating the full orientation. Oh, except when it extends to homosexuals. Because hooray for logical consistency.

Your argument is, essentially, self-defeating. You already cede that males make up the majority of the the predators (in regards to sexual crimes against children). Let’s give you the most leeway and assert that the gay population is 10%, even though that is at the upper range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States. Appears to hover around 4-8%). And let’s go another mile and claim that the homosexual males (which, assuming uniform distribution for homosexuals between males and females, means that the population is spliced in half to 5% of 2-4%, depending on which source you trust) commit sexual crimes against children (i.e. are homosexual pedophiles, as opposed to the heterosexual pedophiles) at 50% the rate of their straight counter-parts. This will still yield a disproportionate representation of homosexual pedophiles by virtue of the fact that males are over-represented as sexual predators against children. Now, like I mentioned above, it does not follow that they are strictly pedophiles (may also be ephebophiles, or attracted to ‘x, y, and z’), so it isn’t accurate to claim that they are strictly ‘x’; instead, it is “more likely” that they are ‘x’.

File: 15326491_394591644206554_1736922625569923351_n.jpg (22KB, 447x275px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 447x275px

>>129191025
Your butthurt is leeking. But quite amusing. Really, check yourself in, yu might have a screw lose yourself, desu.

>>129191287
“Of the 50 male children, 74% of them were molested by men who had been in a heterosexual relationship with one of the child’s relatives.”
Seems like definitions are lost with you. They are, by definition, not heterosexual. The boy is a male, and the predator is a male. If the predator was in an opposite-sex relationship (presumably with an adult female), then (given those circumstances alone), they are a bisexual predator (in that they are attracted to both males and females, but only male children, assuming their victims were only male children).

“Let us assume we packed all these men who molested boys into an auditorium. If we asked them “Are you gay” only one would answer “yes” to our question while the rest would answer “no””

I’ll extend your own logic you used for overall homosexual population to your own point, because that’s what being internally consistent is all about.
The males in-question are reported to have had intercourse with a male (in this case, it is a child who is male, but remember: homosexuality does not define age, that is another sexual orientation). Therefore, they are, by definition, male. That is the same logic you used to inflate the overall homosexual population:

>>129191313
“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 57% of men who had sex with men did not consider themselves to be gay or bisexual.18 A random survey of 4193 men in New York City showed that 91.3% of the respondents claimed they were straight, 9.3% of the “straight” respondents had sex with another man in the past year , while 0.8% of those same respondents has sex with both men and women.19When the authors surveyed men who have sex with men they fond that 73% of them identified as straight.There is also a representative study which found that 20% of all men has had a gay experience.

These figures still do not include those who are not willing to admit whether or not they are gay or have sex with another man. These men could be quite a lot but we do not know how many are hiding. Let us look at some surveys from countries that have aimed to find how many gay or bisexual men there are:”

>>129191329
Emphasis on the last point. I quote: Let us look at some surveys from countries that have aimed to find how many gay or bisexual men there are. So on one hand, males who are reported to have had intercourse with other males are rightfully defined as being homosexual, as per the definition. However, males who have had intercourse with other males (children) are not defined as homosexual. There are homosexuals who are attracted to older, elderly males. That makes them homosexuals who are attracted to older males, it doesn’t make them not homosexual, though because they are still attracted to a biological male.

To summarize, I suggest reading: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611610744.
A bisexual ephebophiles is separate from a heterosexual pedophile which is separate from a homosexual hebephile. One does not have one orientation dismissed at your leisure, or have another rewritten.

Comment from the other faggot thread: If one is born a faggot, then they are, from an evolutionary standpoint, defective. It is a teleological fallacy to assume evolution will necessarily be beneficial, as that defeats the purpose of the "random mutations" point.
However, when one is incapable, by definition of homosexuality, to produce offspring with the opposite sex (as there is no urge to do so), then one will never pass down their genetic lineage. However, that assumes that there is just "one" gay gene, which is not the case (there is no one "race gene", yet race exists). It can be claimed that there is a proportion of the population that might as well be born without the desire to create children with the opposite sex (or, a faggot). That is IF such evidence exists.
The other explanation is that through the acceptance and indoctrination of LGBT and the shift of the Overton window, many youth are subject to psychological abuse and are pushed to habits they never break. (i.e. faggotry). Therefore, they absolve themselves of any agency and claim that they were "born" with no urge to procreate with the opposite sex. This is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a great delusion and borderline psychotic. It is as if I willingly renounce females, then claim I was born to never have those urges. I am mentally ill and fooling myself if I make such claims.
So it is either a biological dead end/useless to the advancement of our bloodline, or psychotic faggots.

>>129185084
gays are not attracted to infants, you idiot.

No. It's fucking horrendous that we let it happen.

>>129179308
no it's not

>>129176918

No, gays should not be allowed to adopt children.

https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if04g01

http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/homer_quotes.html

>>129191198
>A schizophrenic rant about how homosexuals are icky where every single source except 1 was published before 2000
What is this autism?

This is also ignoring the fact that fags spread disease at greater rates and the concept of sexual promiscuity being unrestricted in gay men. Consider the following: females act as the sexual gatekeepers and their libidos are the limiting factors. If males remove themselves from that barrier, they are free to have intercourse as much as they please.

This is also ignoring the fact that a strict homosexual, by definition, will never have children as two members of the same sex can never create offspring unique to both individuals.

In principle, procreation is dependent on opposite-sex union. A gay man who uses the "sperm swap" method is, by proxy, fulfilling the union between man and woman to create a child with the female (rather, her ovum). That male is not strictly homosexual anymore.

>>129191288
>hornswaggled xd
don't you need to get ready for school?

>>129191669
>lololo autism
>hey stop calling faggots mentally ill that is so homophobic and bigoted
Make up your mind, sissy-pants.
Also
>appealing to the age of the study over the content
>assertion is that gays are "icky"
Do faggots lack proper reading comprehension, too?

File: rosa_winkel.jpg (8KB, 208x203px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x203px

>>129191785
How nice that it's even matching your ID.

>>129189182
How many children are born with these degenerative disease, like androgen insensitivity syndrome? How many are treated for that and not their own wild apparitions/desires of "I believe I am 'x' biologically, therefore it is true"?

>>129176918
Two dads are better than no dads, frankly. Although I am weary of lesbian couples adopting. That's a ship with no direction at all.

>>129191805
When it's a study about somthing that depends heavily on the society at the time, especially about homosexuality, using a source that's over 15 years old is questionable. Making it almost entierly on sources over 15 years old is borderline retarded. If you took this into any academic institution you would be laughed out the door, and it's not because of some sjw conspiracy.

>>129192210
>When it's a study about somthing that depends heavily on the society at the time, especially about homosexuality, using a source that's over 15 years old is questionable. Making it almost entierly on sources over 15 years old is borderline retarded.
Incredible how you could type all this out, obviously because of the fact that you are privy to the literature, without making reference to a single citation which proves the evolving attitude somehow refuting the claim you are attempting to deny.
If you are in on the knowledge and are making the assertion that modern literature "debunks" it, substantiate your claim. Otherwise, dismissing a conclusion on these justifications is not providing any data to support your hypothesis.

>>129191198
This infographic is garbage. For one it tries to make the argument that having innate homosexual desires is a choice, and then it goes on to site a bunch of bogus statistics from unverified sources, the most recent one being from 1994.

>>129192506
I will just repost my refutations because at this point, this is getting close to "race doesn't exist because 'insert Lewontin's fallacy here'".

"Incredible how you could type all this out, obviously because of the fact that you are privy to the literature, without making reference to a single citation which proves the evolving attitude somehow refuting the claim you are attempting to deny.
If you are in on the knowledge and are making the assertion that modern literature "debunks" it, substantiate your claim. Otherwise, dismissing a conclusion on these justifications (old=outdated, ergo refuted) is not providing any data to support your hypothesis."

"If one is born a faggot, then they are, from an evolutionary standpoint, defective. It is a teleological fallacy to assume evolution will necessarily be beneficial, as that defeats the purpose of the "random mutations" point.
However, when one is incapable, by definition of homosexuality, to produce offspring with the opposite sex (as there is no urge to do so), then one will never pass down their genetic lineage. However, that assumes that there is just "one" gay gene, which is not the case (there is no one "race gene", yet race exists). It can be claimed that there is a proportion of the population that might as well be born without the desire to create children with the opposite sex (or, a faggot). That is IF such evidence exists...."

>>129192372
Your blog isn't fit to wipe my ass with, it's not worth ""debunking"" it because anyone worth their salt would see what incredible bullshit it is. I seriously hope you're still in high school because if you think any of that is worth anything you shouldn't even be trusted with the janitors set of keys.

>>129192506
>>129192688
"...The other explanation is that through the acceptance and indoctrination of LGBT and the shift of the Overton window, many youth are subject to psychological abuse and are pushed to habits they never break. (i.e. faggotry). Therefore, they absolve themselves of any agency and claim that they were "born" with no urge to procreate with the opposite sex. This is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a great delusion and borderline psychotic. It is as if I willingly renounce females, then claim I was born to never have those urges. I am mentally ill and fooling myself if I make such claims.
So it is either a biological dead end/useless to the advancement of our bloodline, or psychotic faggots."

>>129185084
>my only interaction with fags comes from 4chan horror stories
That's how you sound

File: 1496998846785.png (250KB, 435x453px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 435x453px

>>129192699
>insulting the man over the matter, followed by ad hom "lol your assertions are reduced in merit because of x,y, z, but my unsubstantiated gibberish is totally accepted as evidence-based because...".
In short, start arguing anytime.

>>129186249
Hans you're an idiot if you think it was that simple back than. Truly worthy of a gas chamber.

>>129192150
>Two dads molesting you is better than no dads, frankly.

No. Paedophilia is vastly overrepresented in the homosexual populace. Fuck off with this LGBTQA+SQAUREROOTOFPI pandering, homos are mentally defective and shouldn't bitch when people don't kowtow to their whims.

>>129176918
Abso-fucking-lutely not. Children growing up with two gay parents are more likely to become homosexuals, AND more likely to develop mental/emotional problems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16613625
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

>>129185084
>as opposed to being neglected and hopped up on drugs

>>129176918
no, they cant reproduce they have no right to have children.

Let them die out.

File: 1495913806826.gif (2MB, 450x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x259px

>>129192870
On point.

>>129193406
>Let them die out.
That's not how it works.

>>129192688
>"If one is born a faggot, then they are, from an evolutionary standpoint, defective
Are worker ants evolutionary defective?

aLso, Being gay sin't being sterile. One could even argue that two male matetaking care of a kid are more effective and powerful than one male and one female.
>The other explanation is that through the acceptance and indoctrination of LGBT and the shift of the Overton window, many youth are subject to psychological abuse and are pushed to habits they never break. (i.e. faggotry).
That exlanation doesn't hold as ki raised by gay couple doesn't show more gay tendency than kid raisen in straight family. The do show more accpetance, though, on average.

>so it is either a biological dead end/useless to the advancement of our bloodline, or psychotic faggots."
Or it can be a way to regulate over-population, or to get family member (aunt/uncle) taking care of the kid of the familly from the straight member, thus incresing the chance of survival of their gene, even if in a secondary way.

Evolutionary, gayness isn't a defect and can even be an advantage for the larger genepool of the family, it doesn't hurt the one being gay either, so calling it a defect can be a stretch.

>>129192688
>>129192722
Have you even read any of the sources you listed? Are any of them even accessible at this point in time? How can you verify the nature of the way statistics were taken?
>the average homosexual has 20 to 106 partners per year
Are these just open homosexuals? Does this account for closeted homosexuals too? How many samples were taken? In which community? So many important pieces missing from this. They could've just gone to a random night club with 30 people and taken a survey there.

Also, I'm not denying that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I think it's developmentally or environmentally related, but I also think it's something that can't be changed or controlled. Every society in history has had homosexuals, and almost all attempts at conversion therapy in the past has failed.

>>129185084
>>I'd rather the kid be passed around as a fucktoy for faggots than have them live in an orphanage
Those sound like the same thing?

>>129193499
False equivalency. Find the equivalent to the worker ant in a human population. We do not have "queens" in our species breeding as the ant colonies do.
>aLso, Being gay sin't being sterile.
Effectively, it is. If they abide by the definition of homosexuality, they will literally never have a child so long as it is impossible for a male to impregnate a male.
>One could even argue that two male matetaking care of a kid are more effective and powerful than one male and one female.
Adoption is not equivalent to procreation.
>That exlanation doesn't hold as ki raised by gay couple doesn't show more gay tendency than kid raisen in straight family. The do show more accpetance, though, on average.
That's the assertion. That they are more tolerant towards the orientation. Those who accept it as normal will be more inclined to operate as a homosexual as those who reject it entirely.
>Or it can be a way to regulate over-population, or to get family member (aunt/uncle) taking care of the kid of the familly from the straight member, thus incresing the chance of survival of their gene, even if in a secondary way.
Human population has skyrocketed to billions only recently. We did not dominate the corners of the Earth tens of thousands of years ago. Overpopulation was not a concern. Survival was.
The aunt/uncle will not have children of their own. That's the entire bedrock of my point: spermatozoa cannot impregnate an asshole.
>Evolutionary, gayness isn't a defect and can even be an advantage for the larger genepool of the family, it doesn't hurt the one being gay either, so calling it a defect can be a stretch.
You cannot have children. You are not passing down your genetic blueprint if you are a homosexual. Bisexuals can. Heterosexuals can. Not homosexuals.
>>129193550
>Have you even read any of the sources you listed?
A while ago. Not recently, no. That does not make them non-existent, though.

>>129193627
>I'd rather kids get hooked on heroin at 12 and become street punks that live with a loving family
That's how you sound
You're taking rare cases and applying them to all gays. The reality is that no one is perfect so while gay parents will have problems with their parenting most of them will be great parents and raise perfectly fine kids. It's much better than them staying in foster homes all their childhood where they will statistically have a lower quality of life and not achieve much.

>>129194097
>orphanage
>loving
kek

>>129193550
You are welcome to search the sources up. I cannot type them out for you.
>How can you verify the nature of the way statistics were taken?
Nor can I asses them for you, either. By the way, in literature of this background, there is a section entitled "methodology". It explains what you are interested in pretty clearly.
>Are these just open homosexuals? Does this account for closeted homosexuals too?
I believe it is smart enough to not assert that which cannot be verified with the immediate information. There may be many closeted homosexuals, but you cannot verify that information and the data is not available.
>How many samples were taken? In which community? So many important pieces missing from this.
That's the processes that are outlined in the study. It isn't by coincidence that HIV rates are vastly, disproportionately represented in gay males (https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/cdc-msm-508.pdf). Even assuming that they are 1/10 of the population, that still raises alarming questions.
>but I also think it's something that can't be changed or controlled
Nowhere did I assert the Final Solution for the gays. Personally, I believe that homosexuality, as a behaviour, should be universally ostracized and faggots are oven-worthy. But that isn't related to the claims I am putting forward about definitions and concepts related to homosexual relationships.

>>129194069
I'd advise you analyze your sources before you cherry-pick random, vague, and unverified statistics for your liking and organize them into a shitty infographic. Also, if you've been reading the thread, I also don't think gays should be allowed to adopt. But I also don't think they're all sex-crazed perverts.

>>129194451
Gays tend to be promiscuous due to the liberal agenda that pushed hedonism on the gay community starting around the time of its formation. From my own experience, most gays I've encountered aren't at all interested in gay pride or anything related. This leads me to believe that the flamers you see at pride parades are an extremely vocal minority of gays (that also unfortunately represent the "LGBT community"), and that these guys account for the majority of statistics taken regarding homosexuality. I'd also venture to guess that a lot of gay men stay in the closet due to the shame/stigma caused by a media that likes to highlight and sensationalize the degeneracy of the LGBT community.

>>129194515
>I'd advise you analyze your sources before you cherry-pick random, vague, and unverified statistics for your liking and organize them into a shitty infographic.
None of that constitutes a substantive argument presenting evidence pointing to the contrary. It is your personal input and opinion, which I reject entirely as it is irrelevant.
Homosexuals are more inclined to be promiscuous. If you want to call them sex crazed pervs, sure. But they are promiscuous, and when you are a minority, that speaks volumes when you make up as many, say, HIV cases as is the case (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/470318chap2.html).

>>129195092
>Gays tend to be promiscuous due to the liberal agenda that pushed hedonism on the gay community starting around the time of its formation.
"Formation"? Homosexuality has existed for a long time, before mass media. Female libido is not as active as a males. Removing the limiting factor to unlimited sex is what homosexuality is.

>>129176918
Single people, people with a criminal record, gay people or trans people should not be allowed to adopt

They should be allowed to reproduce should they choose artificial insimination or tube kids, as long as theyre DNA donors (mostly because good luck preventing that) but adopt kids? Absolutely not

>>129195092
I'll just point out this hypocrisy.
>unverified, shitty source blah blah blah I am upset
>but here's my super scientific anecdote lol
>oh and watch me postulate off of said anecdote lmao but you are so bad for that shitty source that is unverified because...

>>129195327
He means the gay community
>Female libido is not as active as a males.
legitimately made me laugh

>>129195637
http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
Because I anticipate the genetic fallacy and because I know you already appealed to the authority over the merit of a claim (laughed out of "academia"), the individuals cited are all "authorities" on the matter.

>>129196116
Wait are you really autistic?

>>129196843
Instead of opting for the genetic fallacy, you go to the insult devoid of any content. You've posted 22 times: have you actually presented an argument even once?

File: 1496833298101.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>129176918
Why r most faggots white?

>>129176918
no they are basically adopting a sex slave whether they will molest it as a baby or rape it when it's 13.

>>129176918
They shouldn't be allowed to exist.

>>129176918

Not unless there was a massive shortage of hetero foster parents available. Gays have higher tendencies towards pedophilia, gay households have higher rates of child abuse and the gay lifestyle will potentially fuck with a kids mind and healthy development even more and possibly be a source of bullying for them.

>>129198218

*also higher rates of domestic violence and adultery ie unstable households, not good for a kid.

>>129196931
I'm sorry I called you retarded. You're very smart. It's just a meme and I didn't mean anything by it

>>129176918
Hell no

>>129198514
Apology accepted. Us leafs are very fragile, much like the sissy-boys.

>>129194394
read a book once in a while moron

These kids seem happy to me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5my5gAjpxyY

>>129176918
only man + hot trap in worst case scenario to dodge the intolerance meme

>>129176918
Even straights should get tested before having kids. What its bad for gays to raise a child or 2 but niggers can just pop em out for a paycheck , and not raise them?

>>129176918
Only if it's family.

I'd adopt my brothers white children if him and his wife died. Better than being put with strangers.

>>129179308
No, MRI scans prove there's a physical difference in the brain of homosexuals

File: polgb12.png (88KB, 297x276px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 297x276px

Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:

https://discord dot gg/hWr7y

>>129185726
I'm surprised that I scrolled down this far to find this image. /pol/ has changed

>>129191610

I found another article about people who grew up with homosexual parents and they were speaking out against gay marriage. Some of the people who oppose gay marriage had harmful upbringings, check out the article.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

File: 1491295532114.jpg (12KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x300px

>>129178230
>I'm sure foster parents are screened for history of mental illness or abuse and a thorough background check is done

>>129193211

I posted something about this, but it's the children of homosexual partners who are against gay marriage and some of them have harmful upbringings: >>129206878

Here's the link for the article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

>>129210359
So do the people raised by shitty straight parents mean we should ban straight marriage?

>>129176918
no

>>129203698
nu-/pol/ not /pol/

>>129212484
We should eliminate behaviour leading to shitty parents or forbid them to procreate.