Support this or else

Gays are all pedophiles, they are abusing that kid.

I only made it 28 sec in, we're all doomed if this is what's being pushed on kids as normal. Makes me glad I didnt have kids, the globohomo won't get them.

Attached: 1530591820284.gif (320x289, 1.12M)

I'm pretty sure they were joking, you autistic queer

Attached: IfajfGb.jpg (1000x866, 37K)

It was obviously a joke you dummy

Kill all faggots

I am not clicking that shit, because the tumbnail already gave me cancer.

>being a massive faggot
>getting a child by unatural manners
>exposing your degeneracy to the world on Jewtube

for sure nothing can go wrong with the kid

No, as long as the faggots are more like the pair from Modern Family, and less like the pair whose child was put in a drag dress and made to dance at some gay bar.

As two others already pointed out: Parents do this. It's called teasing/ joking, and part of growing up with healthy parents is that they'll tease you and you'll learn not to take everything at face value, you FUCKING AUTIST.

>Does /pol disapprove of unwanted children being loved, supported, and nurtured, just because of the adoptive parent's sexual orientation?
Let me ask you, do you disapprove of wanted children being loved, supported, and nurtured, just because of the parent's heroin addiction / bursts of domestic violence / mental illness?

There is a causal connection between not having intimate connections to both genders in early childhood and personality disorders, which has been proven repeatedly. In general, homosexual partnerships will not have people of both genders taking care of the children. As such, it stands to reason that children raised by homosexual couples will be far more likely to develop personality disorders than those raised by conventional couples.
Because of this, homosexual coules should normally not be permitted to adopt - just like drug addicts, convicts, mentally ill people and others are usually not permitted to adopt as it is likely to harm the children.
Of course, there may be special circumstances. For example, if the homosexual neighbors of a recently orphaned child would be wiling to adopt, this might be preferable to forcing the child to move to a foster family in a different city. However, those are special cases that need to be decided individually.
In general, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children.

For adopting adults (as "noble" families and asians often do to continue their line without siring children themselves), there's nothing speaking against it.

As for teenagers, the influence of being raised by homosexuals has not yet been studied properly as far as I'm aware, which is why I'd tend towards picking the safer option and not permit that kind of adoption.

4:50
I don't understand this part, though.. "The floor is gonna drop and we'll fall 300 feet"
And then "I'm so nervouz my nipplez are hardddd"
This was very inappropriate and I'm having a hard time understanding why any one would ever say that near a child - though the degeneracy of this vlog-like nonsense could easily explain it.

Also, apparently the couple has 8.9 million fans/ followers.
Can someone explain who the fuck these people are?!

>Of course, there may be special circumstances. For example, if the homosexual neighbors of a recently orphaned child would be wiling to adopt, this might be preferable to forcing the child to move to a foster family in a different city. However, those are special cases that need to be decided individually.
>In general, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children.
Pretty moderate opinion hans. Maybe gay couples should have to have psychological evaluations.

It’s government quotas that are the problem.
You’ve got a little boy or girl looking for adoption, you’ve got a straight family, that the child would be a perfect fit for, but you need to meet your faggot adaption quota so they go to the gays

People signing up to adopt should simply be screened and scrutinised the same way as they do in my country.
It's legit harder to obtain a permit for adopting a child, than to own an "assault" rifle. (Regular hunting rifles in my country may be fed up to, afair, 2 bullets at a time and a handgun for executing wrongly shot animals up to, afair, 4 bullets as well, and anything above this is usually prohibited; i.e no civilian can own a handgun or military grade rifle).
However there are exceptions to this beyond being a policeman, hunter, or soldier and such special permits are possible to obtain, and that being easier than obtaining a permit to adopt a child.
The US would have far less cases of fucked up foster-kids if it would simply change its system.

Faggots aren't inherently bad people, and afaik there hasn't been a single faggot-parent-pair in my country who molested their child(ren). We do, however, have some terrible happenstances of regular, heterosexual couples who preyed upon their adoptive/ foster children. (In all cases, however, these attrocities were committed by people of such cunningness and cruelty that no amount of screening or psych. evaluations would've saved the children who ended up in their claws)

>Does /pol disapprove of unwanted children being loved, supported, and nurtured, just because of the adoptive parent's sexual orientation?
"Sexual orientation" is incorrect framing. It erases the moral and practical aspects of sodomy, reducing it to some arbitrary variable of no particular significance.

Men who have sex with men choose to do so. What they choose is harmful to themselves and to others. Therefore, they are self-consciously, deliberately evil. On top of that generalized aspect, they are perverts. They make a lifestyle of abnormal sexual behaviors traditionally understood as evil and criminal.

Should we ever let known, open perverts of any kind have any role involving close contact and time alone with children? Of course not. They pose a far greater threat of sexual abuse than people who are not known to be perverts of any kind. The threat may not be as severe as people who are specifically known to be pedophiles, but it's still far greater than people who seem normal.

Should we ever let people who we know are evil adopt children? Of course not. Their motives can't be trusted, nor can they be expected to treat the adopted children decently.

Faggots reproduce by molesting other people's children. Something like >60% of children adopted by faggots are sexualy abused. If not even worse.

Attached: 1460618143995.jpg (656x809, 82K)

I realized the other day that a lot of this world we live in started with the adoption lie. Somewhere in the past, people started saying that adopted children were "just like" a couple's natural born children, that adopting parents were the "real" parents, even to the point where new birth certificates were issued. But it was a lie. When medical or legal issues came up later in the child's life, people ended up having to tell the truth and there were lots of hurt feelings and sometimes they were too much to overcome and adoptive children, realizing they were lied to their entire lives, broke away and refused to have anything to do with the people who raised them. Now people are saying that trans people were born in their self chosen genders and no one is ever allowed to question it. But lies only go so far and at some point the truth comes out and the results are worse than if people had just been honest from the beginning.

For whatever that's worth. I probably didn't consider all the possible things I could be wrong about.

"Sodomy" is only wrong to a religious person.
Religious people shouldn't have a say in anything.

Then maybe fix your screening process, america?

The child will be weak, a beta

Not necessarily. You've been on here too much.

I would literally kill myself if i was that kid. Fuck i hate saying literally but yeah.

>"Sodomy" is only wrong to a religious person.
Men who have sex with men are pestilent. They not only spread disease, but create new plagues.

Take AIDS for instance. It comes originally from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, which is very weak in human hosts, and dies out within a few days. The only way it could evolve into HIV, an effective human pathogen, was for it to be passed from human host to human host many times in rapid succession. It was almost certainly created by a gay community. It's hard to pass by sex except from the man to the receptive partner, and in vaginal sex, even that has a low probability per coupling. A gay "top", however, quickly spreads it to many "bottoms", and some of those "bottoms" then act as "tops". This isn't a historical accident, this is an inevitable statistical consequence of tolerating homosexuality, and it sprung up very quickly after buggery started being treated as a preference rather than a crime.

Then, once HIV existed, it wouldn't have spread worldwide without sodomites. It's like throwing a match into a charcoal grill. The charcoal by itself (the heterosexual population) won't catch on fire without the lighter fluid (the homosexual population), before the match burns out.

More plagues are coming if we continue to tolerate this wickedness. Some will be far worse than AIDS.

>Religious people shouldn't have a say in anything.
Traditions are solutions to problems we've forgotten. Take away the solution, and the problem comes back.

All cultures which were successful coming into the modern era found homosexuality abhorrent and treated it officially as a crime. Why? Because all of those which didn't, were weakened by disease and either destroyed or reduced to effective irrelevance.