Fag adoption

Same-sex marriage objectively turns children into second-class citizens and violates their most essential rights.
1) Every child has a basic human right to know and be raised by their biological mother and father. This is confirmed and reiterated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
2) The sole reason for civil marriage is to secure this right for children and to ensure as many of them as possible are born and raised by their married, biological parents as an intact family unit. Secondarily, it also encourages sane people to get married and procreate.
3) It is impossible for same-sex couples to ethically acquire children. Third-party reproduction violates their rights as a willful act to intentionally deprive the child of their biological mother and/or father, planned before their conception. Same-sex adoption violates their rights by depriving the adoptive child to have both a mother and father. Handing them over to same-sex couples is a political stunt when there are millions of sane couples waiting to adopt (ratio of 30:1 couples to babies). This puts the selfish desires of politically advantaged adults above the best interests of children. It turns adoption into a human trafficking industry. This does not even take into account the fact that same-sex partners are 50% more likely to have secret or open affairs (and their incidence of child abuse is astronomical), an act that renders prospective sane couples instantaneously disqualified.
4) By extending to same-sex couples the same legal and financial incentives and rewards specifically designed to subsidize procreative union for the sake of establishing the goals laid out in point 2, the state is encouraging same-sex couples to have offspring who they cannot acquire except through the means above, therefore officially endorsing and incentivizing the systematic state-sanction abuse of the human rights of children.

Let’s see…

In the United States, homosexual activists are more circumspect about their efforts to gain access to children than they are in Canada or Europe. While NAMBLA has regularly marched in homosexual pride parades in New York, San Francisco and other major cities, homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.
Yet homosexual groups are actively recruiting gay youth through such groups as The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, the HettrickMartin Institute, AIDS service providers, and various agencies that assist runaways. A concerted effort to change age-of-consent laws has not yet emerged, but some ominous signs portend an eventual effort. When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age [1] The paragraph reads as follows: “Eliminate the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years’ and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense… A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person… [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old…”
The public still has a revulsion against child sexual abuse. In fact, whenever there is an attempt to show a connection between pedophiles and homosexuality, the standard response from the activists is that as many as 97% of all pedophiles are heterosexuals and/or married men. Thus, they deflect attention away from their own proclivities to have sex with children.
There is some truth to the claim that many pedophiles are heterosexually oriented men. To be accurate, pedophilia is the crime of sexually molesting a child of the opposite sex. Pederasty, on the other hand, is the crime of molesting a child of the same sex. The term pedophile is used as a general term to describe a person who molests any child, and the term pedophilia, however, is commonly used to refer to child sexual abuse in general. The homosexual who molests a child of the same sex, therefore, technically is guilty of pederasty, rather than pedophilia–yet both are child sexual abuse.
Homosexuals deny that there is a high incidence of child molestation among them, but the statistics tell another story.
First, we need to look at the statistics on child sexual abuse in general. The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse (NCPCA) has published the following information:

1. Reports of sexual abuse are on the increase in our nation.
2. Between 80 and 95% of all child molestations are committed by men. The NCPCA notes, however, that there is a “dramatic increase in the number of adolescent offenders who have committed sexually aggressive acts against other children.”
3. Girls are more likely to be the victims of molestation than boys. Males account for 25 to 35% of child sexual abuse victims. [2]
How prevalent is child molestation among homosexuals? The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger. [3] Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third of child molesters. [4] Further, as noted by the Encino, California-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), “since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophile victims are boys who have been molested by adult males. [5]
A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestation by adult Scout leaders. (Note: The Scouts, who have 150,000 Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters, ban hundreds of men each year from scouting out of concern that they might abuse boys.) [6] A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30% of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91% of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual. [7]
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads in The Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine and discovered that “chickens,” a common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads. [8] The authors also note a statement from a book review by homosexual activist Larry Kramer that the work, “like much canonized male homosexual literature, involves sexually predatory white men on the prowl for dark-skinned boys to gratify them.” [9]

In a 1985 study of the rates of molestation among homosexual pederasts compared to heterosexual pedophiles, Dr. Paul Cameron found the following:
153 pederasts had sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years.
224 pedophiles had molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years.
The average pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each heterosexual pedophile molested an average of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5:1. [10]
Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a “Gay Rights Platform” that included the following demand: “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” David Thorstad, a spokesman for the homosexual rights movement and NAMBLA, clearly states the objectives: “The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom for all–not just equal rights for lesbians and gay men, but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.” This goal has not changed since it was articulated in 1972. [11]
Homosexual organizations around the world have embarked upon a vigorous campaign to lower actual age of consent laws by claiming that current laws are discriminatory against homosexuals. In England, for example, a major push is underway to lower the age of sexual consent for homosexuals to 14. OutRage!, [12] a homosexual organization that operates much like ACT UP in the United States, has been leading the crusade. In a statement published on the Queer Intelligence Service website, OutRage! claims that “…underage queers have rights, too. They are some of the most vulnerable members of our community. We have a special responsibility to protect their interests and welfare.” [13]

References
1. Sex Bias in the US Code, Report for the US Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Feminist World View, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3
2. Child Sexual Abuse, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, December 1996
3. K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York, Summit Books, 1979), p. 275.
4. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3993, cited in The Problem of Pedophilia op. cit. Also. K. Freund and R.I. Watson, Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10, (Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH Fact Sheet
5. Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow, Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, 111.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in The Problem of Pedophilia, op. cit., p. 2
6. Patrick Boyle, Scout's Honor (Rocklin, California, Prima Publishing, 1994), p. 316
7. W. L. Marsha, et al., Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336, cited in Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don’t Want You To See, Colorado for Family Values Report, Vol. 14, March 1994
8. Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., A Content Analysis of “The Advocate”, unpublished manuscript p. 18, quoted inPedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don’t Want You To See, ibid.
9. From Lany Kramer’s Reading List, The Advocate, January 24, 1995, p. 99, cited in Status Report, The Reisman & Johnson Report of Partner Solicitation Characteristics as a Reflection of More Sexual Orientation and the Threat to Children, First Principles Press, January 1995
10. Dr. Paul Cameron, Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil, Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 1227-1236
11. Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network (Old Greenwhich, Connecticut: The Devin Adair Company, 1982), p. 201
12. Peter Tatchell, Why We Want an Age of Consent of 14, Queer Intelligence Service, Agenda for Gay Law Reform, OutRage.!, London, Sept. 10, 1998
13. Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight, Homosexual Activists Work To Normalize Sex With Boys

Looks like it was 73% in 1979.

So it’s probably 90% now.

OP left this whole thread up for adoption. Hope we don't get adopted by some fags.

When it dies at an early age I'll post pictures of it on Facebook.

OP here.
I made this thread late at night yesterday and brought the printed documents to my team today. Today I'll gather more information and print some more. I've archived the thread just in case it ceases to exist.

They're emotional only in the sense that we want to protect children, which is not at all a negative emotion, and base themselves on evidence I've collected.
Being raised by fags would still have its negative factors.
You don't solve a problem by creating another one.
It's winter here.

Thanks for the information. I'll add it to the new batch of evidence.

Well, this is more or less the point, although I didn't think about the truth part.
Why not? It shows any negative effects of not allowing fag adoption are minimal.
For the first point (Regnerus' study) I've already included the number of participants and his position at the University of Texas in Austin, aswell as his method. I'll look for more information on the other studies.
The moderator has said that "this isn't a question of winning or losing", so she may be upset if we're too harsh.
They're ugly as fuck.

Be careful my child. Feminist professors are evil and they will give you shit grades and make your life hell if you're a smart person that disagrees with them. I don't care if you think your teacher "Isn't that bad", they are. They feel no allegiance to you and the minute you show yourself as a smart guy that challenges feminism they will hate you no matter how well they may have liked you before.

You already have statistics that show fag families are on average poorer, and have a higher unemployment rate than regular families right? No need to accept their premise if you already information that refutes it totally.

When you make this point they'll respond with, "What, we shouldn't care about the fag community just because they're a small percentage of the population? We should we reject their freedom to adopt just because there's not many of them?"
That's not an argument you want to get into. It takes time away from making your clear, concise points that you have written down already.

Godspeed OP

Why do you want to protect someone else's niglets and spiclets?

findings from the New Family Structures study
findings from the New Family Structures study
no source

New Family Structures Study is terrible. Try not to discredit the genuine notion sodomites shouldn't be given responsibility of raising children by associating the arguments with NFSS

If OP gets criticised because of NFSS ask what in particular they are referring to.
I doubt they'll have more than handwaving. If not, the criticism can be refuted with:
1. The study was lesbian vs. normal, not rich lesbians vs. normal.
2. Rose' criticisms were dismissed by UT-A.
3. Sherkat used unprofessional language and accuses 3 peer reviewers of unprofessional conduct on the basis of prior public statements.
4. Amicus - The Regnerus study sheds no light on the mating habits of chimpanzees either. How is this even relevant.
5. Small differences in coding is how you rewrite a study to get the conclusions you want.

tl;dr Despite the handwringing, none of the critics have produced a study demonstrating the invalidity of Regenerus' work. You know, like actual Science.

...

POZ LOADZ
MED RESISTANT AIDS

As far as I know she's just a normalfag with feminist sympathies, but that could still be enough to make her retaliate. Either way I'll press forward and try do a good job, as the extent of damage she can do to my life is limited.
I see.

I've read the criticisms against the NFSS and, while it doesn't appear absolutely trustworthy, I've yet to find any definitive debunking of it. The claim that Regnerus should've compared children raised by stable homosexual couples for their entire childhoods with ones raised by biological families in the same manner misses the point- stable families are the exception, rather than the norm amongst homosexuals. Futhermore, his results show even children of divorced parents have a better performance than children raised by homosexuals.
I've even included possible replies to criticisms of Regnerus' research in the paper I've already given to my team.

Absolutely disgusting.
But bugchasing isn't directly useful for this specific debate. Gay pedophilia is- and I'll use >>6816005's evidence for it, though I don't have a strong answer if the opposing team says these are old studies- but I can't show these examples, and even if I did, anedoctal evidence wouldn't be a very strong argument.

Don't use logic.
Make them feel guilty.
Use their weapons against them (shaming, shitlordism).
studies kids from faggot families are unhappy, lesbians are abusive 70%+

hol up

are you sayin

you sayin

mentally ill people abuse their children

SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Heres a question to prepare yourself for OP
With our orphanages full, and many ready LGBT people willing and able to adopt them? Why should we deny those children a home?

Why would any man want to raise someone others child and pretend it's theres?

Faggotry is a genetic dead-end.

Be prepared for the argument that "children who are wards of the state have the worst outcomes of all, even fag adoption is an improvement." You can respond by pointing out the number of straight couples waiting to adopt which outnumber adoptable children by a very large margin, making fag adoption completely worthless.

Is this a fucking joke? Gay marriage is already too much.

That's easy, actually. You don't solve a problem by creating another one. Why should standards we lowered and children given to couples prone to giving them a bad education? We might as well let criminals adopt. Furthermore, that isn't even necessary, as, as has noted, there are more straight couples who want to adopt than there are children awaiting adoption, and extensive bureaucratic barriers aswell as lack of children within the most desired group (white girls younger than 2-years old) are the main reasons so many children don't get adopted.

But yeah, I didn't think about this argument despite being an angle the opposing team is very likely to attack from. I'll tell my team about this.

There are studies that show that there are chemicals/pheromones given off by one parent that affect the development of the child. Thus altering the family structure alters the child's development from the norm.

Here's my argument against lesbians raising young girls, see if you can find other endocrine studies of a similar nature.

Detrimental psychological outcomes from early puberty in girls:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927128/

Father's absence linked to earlier puberty in girls:
news.berkeley.edu/2010/09/17/puberty/

Oh also this is against single mothers, should be obvious.

I'd be interested to know if having twice the number of adult males around would have the opposite effect.

As for emotional arguments, always frame it back to them supporting a group for which there is no evidence of having the same outcomes as normal families.

Scaruffi of /mu/ fame actually is pretty based on this topic. From scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html#usa1108c

To start with, i disagree with same-sex couples having the right to adopt children, until the day that i read enough literature; and the literature i read so far seems to imply that the "traditional" family that has become the norm all over the planet is the result of a "natural selection" of possible forms of family. Before we tamper with it, it's worth pondering the consequences. Most empires collapsed not because of economic or military factors but because they tampered with the structure of family. If there isn't enough literature, then i am opposed to experimenting on children. Homosexual couples can do a lot of good by sending money to poor families and institutions in the third world, instead of "stealing" children that the biological parents would probably not have given them.
Discriminating over family-related things (such as adoption) against homosexuals sounds more legitimate to me than discriminating against incestuous couples, prostitutes, polygamous/polyandric relationships, etc. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce. Telling me that they are identical to couples who reproduce sounds like denying the obvious. Those are couples in which neither is capable of breast feeding a baby. Neither (if males) has a truly feminine voice (a fundamental part of developing the brain of an infant is listening to sounds) or (if lesbians) neither has a male voice. Particularly the lack of a mother may be dreadful. Read a book on child development and pay attention to the role played by the two sexes. All of that probably disappears if you have only male or only female parents.
I find it insulting to women that homosexuals frequently compare their political fight to the fight for gender equality: women are *not* a minority. Anyway, we do discriminate based on gender when it comes to physical strength, for example in Olympic sports, that are divided along gender lines. Why? Because women on the average are less strong than men. And we actually give them more rights in restrooms, in hospitalization, in pregnancy laws, in the military draft, etc etc. Even current abortion laws are asymmetric, discriminating against men: when they talk about "choice", they mean "the woman's right to choose", and not the man's right to choose. Whenever there is a biological difference, we condone and actually encourage "gender-based discrimination". (Discriminating women based on intelligence was wrong because women are not less intelligent than men. That was a prejudice not a fact. That most male athletes run faster than most female athletes is a fact, not a prejudice. That women and not men give birth to babies is a fact, not a prejudice).
We even discriminate based on skin colors when it comes to skin color, e.g. if you need an actor to impersonate Nelson Mandela the most natural choice is to hire an African actor, not a Chinese.
Is it legitimate to discriminate against homosexual couples when it comes to issues such as adoption? Yes, precisely for the same reason that we "discriminate" against women in tasks in which physical strength is a major issue, precisely for the same reason that we discriminate against Chinese actors in movies about African people.

I've learned that liberals don't understand and generally disregard logic, every time I use official statistics and logical reasoning with SJWs and normie liberals, they always just write off my statistics for the littlest of things and choose not to believe them, and they can never follow my line of logic, they're just so fucking mentally trapped into their brainwashed way of thinking that nothing can change them but personal experience.

Fag/Lez/Tranny adoption should be outlawed because it flips the finger to the natural order. Nature = one man, one woman. PERIOD.

If nature wanted gays to raise a family, anal sex and strap-on dildo fucking would lead to procreation.

You're dealing with people that are in fact cultists. They belong to the equality cult. When something comes along that threatens their worldview, they perform the greatest feats of mental gymnastics that one could possibly fathom, as in outright denial of everything. Personal experience isn't even enough; when something happens, every single time they make up excuses for why it happened and never actually get it right.

Interestingly enough, National Socialism is obsessed with upholding the truth and crushing lies, whereas Liberal-Marxism is obsessed with creating a truth via lies, hence their extreme discomfort around people like us that adhere to observable facts.

Exactly, your whole post describes the liberal phenomenon pretty well.

But should they be blamed (the white ones), because there is some pretty hardcore brainwashing in the media that's been going on for a long time, only just recently with the internet could one find alternate ways of thinking and statistics instead of what (((they))) want to feed you.

Dual income parents means no parents

a fashion accessory kid raised by nannies

The way I look at it: in this day and age, ignorance is a choice.

The nature of most people is to follow though, so they don't look up facts or even care about facts as long as everyone else appears not to either. It's not as obvious as the sky appearing blue during the day so they can easily brush everything off. Most people, being followers, naturally look up to authority figures for guidance, authority figures like the media, clergy, politicians, teachers, what have you.

That's why I don't bother shoving facts in people's faces unless it looks like they are receptive. Instead I think it's better to slay their objects of worship by revealing those objects as the foolish things they are; the emperor has no clothes and all that. Humour works, so does outwitting your opponent and making an example out of them while there are spectators present. That works better than the dry facts alone.

I see.
Humor is definitely our greatest asset and, one could say, Holla Forums's actual greatest ally. Many shills and newfags who come here initially disagree and get BTFO but they keep lurking because of how funny a lot of the shit being said here is, and, over time, the funniest memes change their point of view by causing them to let their liberal mental protection stop and they actually take in the full meaning of what's being said when they laugh at it, at first because they find it obscene, later because it's all too true, like with the transition from ironically saying Hitler was right to realizing he was.

Basically the history of /new/ and Holla Forums.

This is something that should be brought up, I believe.

Genetic dead end, plain and simple.

grabbed'.
very high energy

In 2040 whites will be a minority in the US and most of Europe, and the right of gay couples to poz up their adopted white children will be a human right enshrined in international law and every national constitution except in Russia and based slav lands