• Site is being failraided (they're DOSing us and it's not working)
    >3000 guests while about 30 users are active

Letting gay couples adopt children le bad....

Post thread
Aedra said:
You don't need to do anything to atheists other than sitting back and watching. Their world view is already one that looks at reproduction negatively so they will take themselves out over time. Albeit I'd be in favor of forcefully converting to them.
Click to expand...
Impose a tax on atheists or something, it worked with bosniACKs.
On a serious note, forced conversion is something I've thought about recently. While I have no doubt it's totally ineffective in regards to the individual being forcefully converted, it has a generational effect that may justify it. I don't think forced conversion is moral, and I don't think forcibly converting someone is going to bring them any salvation, or their children, but through enough generations their descendants may accept it and partake in it fully. That's where I'd say the dilemma lies: Is it moral to use force to coerce someone into playing pretend as a religious person for the questionable sake of his great grandchildren having an easier start? On one hand it seems like it may, even if force isn't itself moral it's a net positive, from a line of heathens you have a chance to produce some faithful. However I think this overlooks God's providence. He will pick out faithful even from unfaithful homes, and just because someone comes from a faithful home doesn't guarantee his salvation. I think force is best reserved, let God sort out the unfaithful, we should worry about our domain
 
Spas said:
Impose a tax on atheists or something, it worked with bosniACKs.
On a serious note, forced conversion is something I've thought about recently. While I have no doubt it's totally ineffective in regards to the individual being forcefully converted, it has a generational effect that may justify it. I don't think forced conversion is moral, and I don't think forcibly converting someone is going to bring them any salvation, or their children, but through enough generations their descendants may accept it and partake in it fully. That's where I'd say the dilemma lies: Is it moral to use force to coerce someone into playing pretend as a religious person for the questionable sake of his great grandchildren having an easier start? On one hand it seems like it may, even if force isn't itself moral it's a net positive, from a line of heathens you have a chance to produce some faithful. However I think this overlooks God's providence. He will pick out faithful even from unfaithful homes, and just because someone comes from a faithful home doesn't guarantee his salvation. I think force is best reserved, let God sort out the unfaithful, we should worry about our domain
Click to expand...
I don't really care about anyone's freedom and I don't see forced conversions as immoral. So the dilemma doesn't exist for me. The early church brutally oppressed pagans, I am in favor of doing the same to modern day heretics.
 
This is a complicated subject. I'm certain any orphan would be better off with gay parents as opposed to none at all. However, their upbringing comes with a cost. A tax, a burden laid upon society, it is none other than the degradation of the natural familial structure. Whether or not that cost is worth it, that's up for them to decide, not us. That's why discussing this shit is a waste of time. 1717730178195i.png
 
Aedra said:
>any orphan would be better off with pedophiles as opposed to no one

Kill yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, because all gay people are pedophiles. Nice one. I don't like gay people and I don't support them adopting children, but if you seriously think a child would be better off alone than without likely two incomes to support them you are an ignorant guy who is too blinded by his hatred to think clearly.
 
SoytanEnthusiast said:
Nigga you are literally a brown jeet
Click to expand...
stfu kurd rapebaby you're darker than me
Spas said:
Impose a tax on atheists or something, it worked with bosniACKs.
On a serious note, forced conversion is something I've thought about recently. While I have no doubt it's totally ineffective in regards to the individual being forcefully converted, it has a generational effect that may justify it. I don't think forced conversion is moral, and I don't think forcibly converting someone is going to bring them any salvation, or their children, but through enough generations their descendants may accept it and partake in it fully. That's where I'd say the dilemma lies: Is it moral to use force to coerce someone into playing pretend as a religious person for the questionable sake of his great grandchildren having an easier start? On one hand it seems like it may, even if force isn't itself moral it's a net positive, from a line of heathens you have a chance to produce some faithful. However I think this overlooks God's providence. He will pick out faithful even from unfaithful homes, and just because someone comes from a faithful home doesn't guarantee his salvation. I think force is best reserved, let God sort out the unfaithful, we should worry about our domain
Click to expand...
what good would that do us? the head of the current largest religion endorses faggotry and promiscuity. Christcuckery is easily subverted.
 
Aedra said:
I don't really care about anyone's freedom and I don't see forced conversions as immoral. So the dilemma doesn't exist for me. The early church brutally oppressed pagans, I am in favor of doing the same to modern day heretics.
Click to expand...
I suppose I have a different angle, I see faith as something that has to be genuine to be worth something, if we attach heavy privileges to faithfulness it will become a worldly thing. That being said I don't know that much about pagan history, and who am I to moralize the church? Guess I'll sleep on it
Oot said:
Yes, because all gay people are pedophiles. Nice one. I don't like gay people and I don't support them adopting children, but if you seriously think a child would be better off alone than without likely two incomes to support them you are an ignorant guy who is too blinded by his hatred to think clearly.
Click to expand...
I was confounded as to why you would coal react me in that other thread, but evidently it's just an issue of character
istanbul said:
stfu kurd rapebaby you're darker than me

what good would that do us? the head of the current largest religion endorses faggotry and promiscuity. Christcuckery is easily subverted.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of the pope but I'm pretty sure that's a gross misinterpretation
 
Oot said:
Yes, because all gay people are pedophiles. Nice one. I don't like gay people and I don't support them adopting children, but if you seriously think a child would be better off alone than without likely two incomes to support them you are an ignorant guy who is too blinded by his hatred to think clearly.
Click to expand...
There's a statistical correlation between faggotry and pedophilia. Gay men are at least 11 times more likely to be pedophiles than straight men. Of course I'm "blinded by hatred" for simply noticing something obvious. I should just be a good goy like you and trust the science instead.

Anyway, burn all homosexuals at the stake.
 
Aedra said:
There's a statistical correlation between faggotry and pedophilia. Gay men are at least 11 times more likely to be pedophiles than straight men. Of course I'm "blinded by hatred" for simply noticing something obvious. I should just be a good goy like you and trust the science instead.

Anyway, burn all homosexuals at the stake.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I trust the science and am a good goy for being against the same thing as you are. Smartest shlogger award.
 
>Homosexuality isn't corelated with pedophilia, and while I don't like homosexuals and don't support them adopting children, you have to agree that being adopted by 2 homosexuals is better than not being adopted by 2 homosexuals
1701423701366.png
 
Spas said:
>Homosexuality isn't corelated with pedophilia, and while I don't like homosexuals and don't support them adopting children, you have to agree that being adopted by 2 homosexuals is better than not being adopted by 2 homosexuals
View attachment 13576
Click to expand...
If I ran the country homosexuality would be outlawed. I'm not trying to bring religion into this discussion because these are Godless people who don't listen to what God has to say. If they did, they wouldn't be gay. Looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, I'd rather have money supporting me than none at all. That's why I said what I said and I stand on it. smugjak
 
Oot said:
If I ran the country homosexuality would be outlawed. I'm not trying to bring religion into this discussion because these are Godless people who don't listen to what God has to say. If they did, they wouldn't be gay. Looking at it from a completely neutral perspective, I'd rather have money supporting me than none at all. That's why I said what I said and I stand on it. smugjak
Click to expand...
This does sound almost kind of like you're saying something along the lines of "I'd prostitute my prepubescent body for financial support"
 

Similar threads

DonutHole
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOURE LETTING IN WHEN YOU ALLOW TWITTER IMMIGRANTS
2 3
Replies
47
Views
652
dataminedandproud
dataminedandproud
265121297
Datamining Br00b, stop letting these bots harvest our data
Replies
1
Views
70
Username:Required
Username:Required
p0rt42
letting you know
Replies
5
Views
411
MoonMetropolis
MoonMetropolis
p0rt42
Just letting you know
Replies
16
Views
443
DonutHole
DonutHole
Suznetsov
Datamining 4chan.gay source code for you aryans
Replies
3
Views
49
Suznetsov
Suznetsov
Back
Top