General Forum > Open Forum

Translations available

<< < (2/2)

K6:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 05:00 ---
Besides, what is with those who have no sex at all, because they are to shy or too ugly?  >:) There are only feelings and no factual behavior in these cases. How are you going to define their sexual orientation while disregarding their feelings entirely?

--- End quote ---

Based on a general presumption that all adults have adhered to a sexual orientation or another,either exclusively or predominantly (Code of the
GPR,art.48,law of october 1st,1995).Among an heterosexual majority,the above indicated individual adult would be regarded as heterosexual.But
generally,individuals display tendencies - like to whom they look on the street,read as erotic material,or collection as fetishes - which are sufficient to form up an idea wether they are heterosexuals or gays.The Code of the GPR does not require sexual acts,only observable tendencies.Only newborns (Code of the GPR,art.44,law of may 18,1979) and by extent minors are regarded as without sexual orientation.

K6

Mogul:

--- Quote from: K6 on Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 03:24 ---Wearing or displaying attributes of the opposite sex is no proof of gayness in the GPR.Failing an explanation to the contrary,it could be regarded as an heterosexual interest. [..]
--- End quote ---

Ok, wearing a cloth is not enough to count as gay, but also does not prohibit a gay from being a gay, correct? This is acceptable in principle.


--- Quote from: K6 on Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 03:24 ---[..] Sorting males from females is a matter of sperm and eggs in the GPR.The normative system of the GPR has adopted a position based on what individuals display and which can be verified.Not what they feel and which is beyond any verification.
--- End quote ---

Unfortunately, this is an approach which concerns the bedrooms and therefore the behavior is as well difficult to verify as the feelings. Who is going to control what a man and a woman or a man and a man do in a flat, when they visit each other? Any factual "proof" of homosexuality would require fascistoid state structures, and I am sure non of us would propagate this approach.

Surely, anyone who openly lives a heterosexual life can not be regarded as gay, no matter what his feelings might be. The weak point of the GPR's definition is that it contemplates not only the current behavior, but also the past which might lay 10 or 40 years ago. You ought accept that humans develope in the course of their lives and not everyone was so lucky to discover his/her true sexuality with 12.

Besides, what is with those who have no sex at all, because they are to shy or too ugly?  >:) There are only feelings and no factual behavior in these cases. How are you going to define their sexual orientation while disregarding their feelings entirely?

K6:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 02:41 ---I posted a reply in alt.politics.micronations.

The definition in GPR's code is undoubtedly suitable to restrict definition of "gay" to those who are beyound any doubt of being gay. However, the definitions appear to me to be a bit too tight for the various actual expressions of gayness. For example:

"The third provision reads as "Homosexuality does not encompasses the wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex,
nor the will or the desire to belong to that sex" (Code of the GPR,art.25,law of october 16,1991)."

Do you declare hereby that it is not sufficient for a male to clothe or feel oneselfe as a female to pass for "gay", or do you exclude anyone who performs that way from being "gay" per definition? This point should be worked out more precisely.

If this was an exclusion criterion, please consider this: the "wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex" is a pretty dilatable a thing, depending of temporary fashion. An ear-ring or a  bracelett or even a dress cannot be a criterion for the definition of person's identity.

--- End quote ---

Wearing or displaying attributes of the opposite sex is no proof of gayness in the GPR.Failing an explanation to the contrary,it could be regarded as an heterosexual interest.Sorting males from females is a matter of sperm and eggs in the GPR.The normative system of the GPR has adopted a position based on what individuals display and which can be verified.Not what they feel and which is beyond any verification.

K6

Mogul:
I posted a reply in alt.politics.micronations.

The definition in GPR's code is undoubtedly suitable to restrict definition of "gay" to those who are beyound any doubt of being gay. However, the definitions appear to me to be a bit too tight for the various actual expressions of gayness. For example:

"The third provision reads as "Homosexuality does not encompasses the wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex,
nor the will or the desire to belong to that sex" (Code of the GPR,art.25,law of october 16,1991)."

Do you declare hereby that it is not sufficient for a male to clothe or feel oneselfe as a female to pass for "gay", or do you exclude anyone who performs that way from being "gay" per definition? This point should be worked out more precisely.

If this was an exclusion criterion, please consider this: the "wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex" is a pretty dilatable a thing, depending of temporary fashion. An ear-ring or a  bracelett or even a dress cannot be a criterion for the definition of person's identity.

K6:

In connection with the positive interest displayed by the GLR towards the written normative system of the GPR,translations into English of some provisions of the said normative system have been posted today in the usenet forum of alt.politics.micronations,along with a short commentary.See the thread titled "Seceding or not seceding,that is the question",Message # 34 of the English language sector of activity of the GPR.

K6

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page