General Forum > Gay Homeland - General discussions

Two scenarios of gay political independence

<< < (2/4) > >>

K6:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Mon, Jun 05, 2006, 13:40 ---To keep political ballance, it might be necessary to introduce additional chambers for the parliament: "house of boys" and "house of girls", if you want, both with veto right on legislative proposals.


--- End quote ---

The political importance of the various sub-groups constituting a gay democratic State will entirely depend from whom immigration will bring to its shores.Those who won`t come won`t have any power or influence.Those who will be underepresented,because they prefer to remain abroad and under foreign hethro rule,will have to seek compromises with whatever gay sub-group forming the majority in numbers.

K6

K6:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Mon, Jun 05, 2006, 13:40 ---I have little doubts that in a Gay State there will be not few gays and lesbians who would prefer to separate from the opposite sex spacially and organizatory - there is nothing to object in such behavior, as long as such groups do not regard their interests as superior to the entire community.

--- End quote ---

I do not mind as a male the hatred of males I have once observed among radical separatist lesbians.The later think that they serve some female mystique.Whereas the real beneficiary of their posturing and attitude is actually the gay interest.I do not ask how the gay interest is served,but wether or not it is served.Radical separatist lesbians exclude so-called lesbian mothers.They would haul them before some court if they could.And in a gay State,I wouldn`t mind at all their having a judicial competence over certain matters which would lead to just that.The general charge could be "usurpation of the reproductive function,which in a gay culture and under a gay administration is of the exclusive competence of the State".The radical lesbians could add to that whatever pretext of their own invention,again I wouldn`t mind.They may hate males if it can sooth them.They have at present no independence from males when it comes to the erection or maintenance of the dwelling or transit infrastructure of a modern society.

K6

K6:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Mon, Jun 05, 2006, 13:40 ---Certainly, excluding females from the "Gay Republic" would eliminate the worries about their heterosexual children, but it also would deprive us of a large part of our target citizens, who would be left on their own by the Gay Government. Certainly, we could here and now decide that lesbians do not belong to our people and that we have no reason to worry about them and do not carry any responsibility for them.

--- End quote ---

I wouldn`t go as far as excluding women.I would however go as far either integrating them under a definition of who is gay at the exact same conditions as men,or excluding them.One single definition of who is gay for both sexes.No preferential treatment for women on account that they are women,and no integration of women to the gay people under conditions different from those of men.Anyway,any group advertising itself as gay,even if it is neither a State nor even a political organisation,including this forum,will attract less women.It is a matter of economics and material condition.Huge economic transfers,of a rather unilateral and unidirectional variety and which occur under hethro rule,will not happen under a gay administration.Men there will be beyond the control and sometimes even of the reach of the opposite sex.It will not be possible to set up males has happen in a heterosexual culture,where sexual pleasure combines all too easily with certain accomplished facts of a reproductive nature.The gay male world shall remain an untamed one.

K6

Mogul:

--- Quote from: K6 on Sun, Jun 04, 2006, 16:45 ---If this State of ours is composed only of individuals of one sex,of males for instance,then there is no reason to exclude males of the so-called bisexual orientation.The guarantee as to the future of our country will then be entirely in our hands,not in theirs.If this State of ours is mixed sex,so-called bisexuals are to be issued only tourist visas of,say,thirty days per year.Our country would then profit economically from their presence, without being saddled with the representation and burden of their heterosexual interests.
--- End quote ---

Certainly, excluding females from the "Gay Republic" would eliminate the worries about their heterosexual children, but it also would deprive us of a large part of our target citizens, who would be left on their own by the Gay Government. Certainly, we could here and now decide that lesbians do not belong to our people and that we have no reason to worry about them and do not carry any responsibility for them. Alone, such a position contradicts my personal sense of justice and does not reflect my views on gay identity. If 95% of gays, 95% of lesbians do not regard themselve as one people on their own, it is deplorable, but we hardly can force them into changing their views. From those remaining 5% of gays and 5% of lesbians who identify themeselves as one people, how shall we come to the idea to refuse those lesbians? It would be a "nice" Gay State sending lesbians back to Nigeria and Zimbabwe, whereas UK and Canada accept them, if reluctantly, as asyl seekers.

I have little doubts that in a Gay State there will be not few gays and lesbians who would prefer to separate from the opposite sex spacially and organizatory - there is nothing to object in such behavior, as long as such groups do not regard their interests as superior to the entire community. To keep political ballance, it might be necessary to introduce additional chambers for the parliament: "house of boys" and "house of girls", if you want, both with veto right on legislative proposals.

K6:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Sun, Jun 04, 2006, 15:17 ---I hardly believe that the young and handsome would enjoy the prospective of passing their sourly earned money to the government.

--- End quote ---

Gays would pay taxes in a country of theirs,just like they used to do under foreign hethro rule.Only that it is their State and society which would
profit from the operation.Having no kids,no wives and no family obligations,and having thus more available income,the citizens of a gay country
would in all likelyhood pay higher taxes,again just like they did as bachelors under the former hethro regime.With this higher contribution,coupled with the fact that they would be more available for public service,they could offer themselves the best of what is available in terms of, precisely,public services,such as for example free health care,pensions for the old and state of the art education system and autonomous colonies for those gay teenagers who would succeed to emigrate to that gay country.

K6

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page