/politics/ - News & Politics

Who gives a shit? They can be faggots on their own time, but when they disrupt the streets with their faggotry, then yes, arrest them.

Other than that, I couldn't give less of a fuck. These are shitty politics.

>>2612

1) is retarded. It implies that definitions can be changed arbitrarily to suit personal needs and preferences (how convenient!)

2) -||-

3) None (Russia?) You mean 'to have basic human rights like all of us', but without faggotry outside the closet? That's how it's for all of us, though.

This one.

5) I guess. Being "gay" was never considered an identity historically(and still isn't one in many places), it came as a political response to Anti sodomy laws and then devolved into part of the identity politics fuckery we see today.

Traditional European societies(pre Christian) had laws ranging from not caring, to only persecuting the "bottoms" in homosexusl sex, to outright killing all of them. Ancient societies that tolerated Homosexual sex to some extent or another never had gay marriage just because it would be pointless. A marriage is primarly an agreement made around kid having.

Right now as far as the identity goes its obviously cancer, it tends to be centered around consumerism, effeminacy and worst of all they tow the SJW line.

>>2622

>but when they disrupt the streets with their faggotry

OP is talking about much less than that, like holding hands and kissing in public.

They'd be pushed out of the public eye and bugchasers would have their poz parties crashed.

To add one more thing.

90% of "bisexuals" and even most "gays" on *chans seem to be attracted to men who put a shit ton of effort into looking like women, or they're into cartoon boys who look like girls. I think people pop a boner from a few traps(who look more feminine than some women) and think therefore they have a differant "sexual orientation". Even on places like /cuteboys/ you see a bunch of dudes trying to look as much like women as possible.

Obviously this doesn't explain people who are into bears and shit like that, but thats a minority on these websites.

Purge the unwilling. Therapy for the ones who know they are fucked in the head.

>>2641

Also, can faggotry be inherited? I'm iffy about letting them breed once therapy has taken its hold. I've always held that they are simply fucked and perverted and made the choice rather than it being a genetic trait. Hormone imbalance could obviously fuck with them, but that alone doesn't make someone a faggot. I think they make a conscious choice.

3) is the best option among what you listed. It certainly shouldn't be promoted as a lifestyle, but there will always be people who have the tendency towards being gay, and as long as they act civilized, respectful, and keep their business behind closed doors I think it is okay.

The price of actively pursuing all gay people would be to create a massive, far-reaching surveillance state that can see what people do in their bedrooms, and frankly I don't think it is worth the cost (both financially and in terms of liberty) to go after the ones who aren't actively promoting a gay lifestyle in public.

3) seems best. If you're gay you should really keep it to yourself. Nobody could give less of a fuck that you take it in the ass.

these rabid tumblr-frenzied freaks need restrictions.

They'd just die of AIDs without being able to afford healthcare in most cases, and kicked out of clubs and shops for being lewd in public.

>>2612

3, though you could go with "mental hospitals and some form of treatment".

>>2664

Other than dealing with hormonal imbalance, what treatments are you referring to?

>>2665

Religious for one. If they can unfuck everyone the government has fucked with, then surely they have techniques or can develop such for faggots.

Nobody has looked into doing anything because the media, the government, and the public shun it because "muh diversity" and "muh equality", and "muh born that way nothing wrong with me" bullshit. California, and probably others, have outright banned any kind of therapy for minors:

https://archive.is/8cD1k

>>2632

>OP is talking about much less than that, like holding hands and kissing in public.

Who gives a shit then? Let them be together. They both have consent, and it doesn't affect you in any way.

>>2680

>Who cares about the kids they adopt, let them become degenerates

>>2680

Because kids are exposed to whatever people do in public. A young boy would be confused and affected when he sees two men kissing or doing any other shit couples do. This is also vomit-inducing for adults, but that's a smaller problem.

>>2612

1. However without all this gay pride LGBTQAIWTFBBQ bullshit

>>2612

>In a perfect state, how would gays be dealt with?

As would any other person be. Everything down here goes the same for lesbians.

They could face charges for public indecency, for distributing sexually explicit material to minors, for intentional transmission of infectious diseases.

Extending the definition of marriage to homosexual unions would nullify the original reason why marriage exists: to define obligations of the couple to each other and their children. Parentage can only be biological, raising other person's kids is fosterage, and adoption has historically only been practised between adult people of different age (so childless people could choose their heir).

In European cultures, there was a practice of godparenthood, where an individual chosen by parents assumed an obligation towards well-being of the child in case the parents are unable to provide it. If godparenthood was still practised, there would be no real need for adoption in the modern conception of the term. Of course, homosexuals could be godparents, if the child's parents decide so.

What level of PDA would be considered unacceptable in your ideal world, /politics/?

Personally I think home should be a place for the family, so in public I'd allow most only partially-lewd PDA (kissing, hugging romantically, hand holding).

>>2720

>>In a perfect state, how would gays be dealt with?

>As would any other person be. Everything down here goes the same for lesbians.

So they should be allowed to talk about being gay or being a couple in front of children or in TV?

Full rights. Anyone that disagrees is without fail a hysterical reactionary moron.

>>2726

They should never show their gay, not even a little, any gay shit should be fined then 2nd time jail.

Do you really think two fags kissing in public is ok.

>>2763

I was talking about all forms of PDA, not just gays...

Not allowed to marry

Castrated if they contract HIV/AIDS

Thats pretty much it

I think there's an issue within homosexuality where the sexuality is just overplayed into a lifestyle choice and culture. I think the tragedy is that the blatant faggots, less socially tolerable, are over-representing the responsible, possible minority.

I don't have anything against homosexuals marrying and adopting kids. Though doubt seeps my mind if you're strictly talking about the type that participate in gay parades and similar public demonstrations.

3 sounds about right but 4 is tempting, the problem with faggotry and all degeneracy is that when it is socially acceptable, it latches into culture, effectively poisoning the minds of entire generations of kids and further destroying common sense and basic human decency.

Removing faggots from any and all possible influence they can have in culture, actively preaching values against faggotry, and teaching how pig disgusting they truly are, would literally rid the world of "acquired taste" degenerates, leaving only the ones that are really insane.

Fags are going to exist no matter what. The two externalizations that cause this to be society's problem are their spreading of disease and their socially corrosive 'pride' displays which come from a deep seated need to challenge healthy culture with their sick one.

The solution to the first is simple. REQUIRE them to be married to practice homosexuality. Outlaw sodomy outside of marriage under penalty of death. Faggots have an outlet for their degeneracy, but have to be in a committed relationship to one other faggot.

The solution to the second is more important. It can't be done with government force. It has to be an enduring grass roots campaign of hostility against fags who push their fag culture and pay very real prices for it. Bring back freedom of association and allow companies and businesses to fire people for being outrageous faggots. This kills the degeneracy without government force.

>>2640

It's a minority everywhere, really. Homosexuality is more fringe than /fringe/.

>>2728

If they only talk about things that would be normal for "bros" to do in a "bromance", then sure.

full rights where the government is concerned, but private citizens (including business owners) and private organizations (including adoption agencies and religions) should also have their own rights to choose who they do or do not want to associate with.

I don't mind homos being allowed to marry, what I do mind is that as soon as they are given the right they start suing the fuck out of everybody that wants nothing to do with them.

(2), but instead of marriage, tax benefits should apply to actual families only. The stuff regarding hospitals and the like should be available to arbitrary unions. Adoption is an issue because the child is already in a very stressful situation, so the adopting family should be as normal as possible.

4

>>2612

1) Everyone with the mental capacity acts according to what law requires and receives what law gives equally.

2) I can't adopt because lol gays, but other people can have children even if they are not ready or ar terrible parents.

3) Retarded

4) Retarded and expensive

5) if genetic science and hormonal treatment works better in the future we can prevent gayness, in case it is a genetical or biological thing we can always change or correct the genes of our future generation so they aren't born with gay genes. However this must be the decission of the parent.

Execute them. Their disease is a cancer. They don't reproduce, they recruit.

>>2646

Don't think so, most fags are fags because of social engineering and the current cultural enviroment supporting it, but the "hurr it's genitks duh" it's not completely out of the question, a fringe minority of fags are so because of taxoplasmosis so maybe prohibiting from reproduction might not be unreasonable.

>I don't care how degenerates destroy young minds and therefore society and culture as a whole, I just care about DA BUSINESS.

As expected from people who already see children as property.

Lolbergtarianism, not even once.

4 until it's no longer socially acceptable, then 3.

>>2646

Doubt it, if it was it probably would have died out a long time ago. It probably more has to do with society and our completely fucked senses of sexuality. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if part of it was also environmental, especially the number of plastics and hormones that are getting introduced into the environment.

>>6706

what about gay couples who adopt?

>>6706

Marriage has far more legal ramifications than that. Power of attorney, visitation rights if someone's in the hospital, things like that.

I think a little pride in oneself is a healthy thing, but I do agree that "pride" in a gay sense can be self-defeating. Even though people are more accepting of gays than they were 10 years ago, they still don't want Castro Street on Main Street. Just act like a normal human being and don't fruit up. It'll do yourself a favor.