GLR Forum
General Forum => Archives etc. => Topic started by: Fridet on Mon, Dec 05, 2005, 06:43
-
I think a "Gay Homeland" is not fully possible. It would be reverse discrimination towards our Hetro friends and families, some that have worked hard in our behalf. Rather we should create a Kingdom or Republic based on Freedom for All. A Country that supports Gays worldwide. A Kingdom where the original King/Queen is Gay/Lesbian. A Democracy where like mined people without hate, prejudice form a haven for all mankind. I believe there is more wrong in this world than just Gay Issues, those I think those play centrally in my mind to the surrounding issues. I believe society has time and time again chosen Money over People in the way it works, and I would work to reverse that.
I am HRH, LJ Kelley of Fridet. We stand for: Equality for All, Socialism as a tool of Equality, Democracy as a Voice for All.
We can establish this by. 1)Acquiring an Island/Land Mass 2)Moving to this Island/Land Mass 3)Declaring Independence.
For more information visit www.fridet.org Our constitution is not yet finished and We would love feedback and support from the Community.
-
The Gay Parallel Republic (GPR),which has a regular activity in the usenet forum of alt.politics.micronations,cannot entirely exclude a scenario of complete secession from heterosexuals,in the context of a country of ours demographically based on immigration,multiculturalism and international gay solidarity,and on the basis of gay self-determination as well.Countless past generations of gays who have suffered for existence and self-determination now ask us not to blink in this hour of truth.
K6
-
The only issue in Society is NOT Discriminations agianst Gays. Rather, this is an effect of a multitude of problems that are deep rooted in our societies, so which are better than others. We must cause more strife by discriminating. We must rather look at the deep rooted issues of Selfish Societies, and the Real Truth in History. Somehow we must create a society that at the end of the day actually cares for its citizens, unlike any other society I beleive currently exists.
I also beleive we must create a society where Hate Speech is not allowed, even under the cloax of Religion. A society with opinions, but not allowing those opinions to be used as an excuse to hurt a sect of society for thousands of years.
Creating a Society just on the notion of Homosexuality is flawed. What will the principles of this Nation/Kingdom/Republic be? I am a Homosexaul and that is not the only aspect of my life. And not all the hurt and pain in my life has been because I am gay.
-
Creating a Society just on the notion of Homosexuality is flawed. What will the principles of this Nation/Kingdom/Republic be? I am a Homosexaul and that is not the only aspect of my life. And not all the hurt and pain in my life has been because I am gay.
I have no choice but to remain,alongside my own generation,under foreign heterosexual rule.On another hand,I would not choose or recommend such a fate for the gay generations to come.Not that I see upon reflexion political independence as something superior to the equality of rights.Both can be taken away.But the risk of trying to take away political independence is greater,since it involves war.There is no risk involved in abolishing the equality of rights.The little we know about past history,insofar as it concerns us gays,is that there were at times periods of tolerance which ended without our being able to do anything about it.Since there is no past experience of political independence in our case,we must rely on heterosexual national examples and models.The one which impressed me the most was the parallel underground state set up by the poles right after the invasion and occupation of their country by the germans and the soviets in 1939.It is well described in the book "Story of a secret state" by Jan Karsky.So fascinating was the historical experience of the poles in their quest for independence that I went so far as learning their language in order to learn and know what was in their brains which made them so stubborn and singleminded
about their self-determination.
K6
-
You are 100% flawed, in your statement about wishing no harm for future Gay Generations. The only way to have a "perfect" live for future Gay Generations is to eradicate discrimination and have equality in EVERY country in the world. (See hope.fridet.org). Gays will continue to be BORN accross the globe, not only in the Gay Republic or Fridet. So in fact, work must be done in Countries around the World.
I do think a Gay Republic or Kingdom can help in that regards though (So I think you are in the right track). I wish I could immigrate somewhere (that didn't take 2 years, and then half the population hate you anyways) that was supportive of me and my partner, so that we could live together. And I wish you good luck in the Gay Republic, and the Kingdom of Fridet will support diplomatically any gay kingdom built on Democracy and Human Rights. I guess we are doing things for similar reasons. I just beleive society should be free for all.
Obviously the Kingdom of Fridet cannot take away the rights of it citizens. I am gay, and the Constitution forbids discrimination against gays in any way, including marriage. The King in Fridet has 3 Jobs one of which is Defender of the Rights (I can step in on Humanitary Issues, Human Rights. I can repel laws that go against the Spirit of the Constitution, though I can't create any laws (except under Immigration).
What is the Kingdom of Fridet doing? Right now we are finishing the Constitution and Law Framework. Democratic Elections will happen 4 years after Independence. This is to ensure stability and provide a legal framework to abide by. We are also working on getting financial backing (as well as saving out of every pay check) to procure an Island (prefered settlement area) and savings (For eventually Housing, Wind Power, Water, Food, etc). We will then aquire an Island, construct buildings and infrastructure. We will the move unto the Islands in one force (Current Citizens) and then Declare Independent (and hope for the best).
-
You are 100% flawed, in your statement about wishing no harm for future Gay Generations.
I will not,before future gay generations who are my sole judges,recommend them to remain forever under foreign heterosexual domination.
K6
-
Hello and welcome!
I think a "Gay Homeland" is not fully possible. It would be reverse discrimination towards our Hetro friends and families, some that have worked hard in our behalf. Rather we should create a Kingdom or Republic based on Freedom for All. A Country that supports Gays worldwide.
Why not possible? Vatican exists very well, the East-Indian company was prospering also for a pretty long time... Just imagine such a country to be an organization with territory without foreign rule - it's possible, but, of course, not easy to establish. First of all, one should have a sufficient amount of people who are ready and willing to participate in such an enterprise, and then one must find a country where one can purchase land under condition of independency or at least self-rule. Sure, such a country isn't designed for our large family - but hey, we are oppressed, they are not! If one desires to visit the family, one shall buy an airplane ticket and make a trip to them (or they come for a visit). Honestly, who of us small-town boys actually does live in the same places like our parents? Come on, it would be not that much difference for them!
:=SU
-
Hello and welcome!
Why not possible? Vatican exists very well, the East-Indian company was prospering also for a pretty long time... Just imagine such a country to be an organization with territory without foreign rule - it's possible, but, of course, not easy to establish.
Establishing now a gay independent state is impossible.It could be done only during some interregnum,when some existing empire or state would be disintegrating,and provided then that the appropriate gay organisation had been created for that purpose long in advance.What we can do here is only preparatory work in the form of debates,which if saveguarded could be of use to those gays of some future generation who shall seek and achieve independence in a geopolitical form.We could also contemplate the possibility of political simulations,as they do in the context of the hobby called micronationalism.As a gay,I see political independence much the same way as our mere ordinary existence right now,that is as something we are owing and which we must ow to no one else but to ourselves.
K6
-
I disagree. It is possible at any stage to "declare independence", though no one can tell the future or what would happen If such were to happen. It generally depends on what country it invovles. For example the US would probably make it very diffucult, however a more Liberal Country with more rights might seem a problem in trying to the right thing and pleasing the electorate (people that wouldn't want to see imperialist or dictator type activity or any violence). It all depends, and I'm gonna try along with like minded people. Fridet allready has citizens that are geared toward this, it will probably take time but we will get there.
-
I disagree. It is possible at any stage to "declare independence", though no one can tell the future or what would happen If such were to happen. It generally depends on what country it invovles.
It is possible to enforce right now certain key aspects of political independence and sovereignty,but not to the point of setting up a complete
state apparatus.We may for instance delineate on maps and then merely use on site a territory as a state would do it in certain respects,without
official or internationally recognized title of possession.One of the first acts of a politically separate and independent human community consists in
defining who are its members,and sorting out nationals from foreigners.Since such a differenciation does not really involve any physical act,it does
not lend itself to any physical opposition either.Religious jews have done that for the last 3,000 years,that is having a definition of who is a jew,
without having an independent state of theirs for most of that time.The micronation of which I am myself a member (*),and which was founded in 1977,has a precise definition of who is gay since 1979 (amended in 1991) based upon the displayed sexual orientation of the individual.We may call this acting like a state,while categorically denying being one.With the advent of modern communication systems like the internet,we may conduct international political relations,which is done in the context of the hobby called micronationalism and in proper micronational forums.
(*) Gay Parallel Republic (GPR).Participation in micronational forums since october 15,1998.In alt.politics.micronations since january 18,2005,
mostly in French and in Spanish (some activity in English).The micronationalist crowd is most often educated,does not mind about our being gay,and has so far and most of the time left the GPR act just like any other participant in the hobby of micronationalism.The national group which seems the most interested and involved in micronationalism is the Brazilian one.In Europe,there exists micronations in such places like France,Germany and Poland.
-
Honestly, who of us small-town boys actually does live in the same places like our parents? Come on, it would be not that much difference for them!
Political independence as an attitude (and not as a state as yet) should not modify our personal relations with non-gays anymore than with any foreigners in respects other than sexual orientation.The change occurs only at the level of relations which are of a political nature.
K6
-
It is possible at any stage to "declare independence", though no one can tell the future or what would happen If such were to happen. It generally depends on what country it invovles.
This is surely true. Generally, any declaration of independence makes sense only if the newly-independent people is willing and able to actually exercise an "effective control" upon the territory it's claiming. It means, the newly-independent people administrates the territory and citizens on it's own, makes the laws and is able to enforce them, raises and spends money and pays no tribute to any foreign power. The sovereignty also means, than no citizen can be arrested by any foreign power and be brought outside of the country without permission of the legitimate government. Now, the declaration of independence makes therefore no sense if the government/administration is not able to guarantee the actual sovereignty (or lead the people into an armed conflict to defend one's sovereignty). Therefore any real effort to create a new country must involve political considerations about the consequences and the ways to guarantee the existence of the state before issuing bold declarations. At the same time, the establishing of a new country as such is nothing unusual, as we have seen in the last decades: Timor-Leste, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and so on. Even Abchasia and Taiwan, though not recognized, are de-facto independent states and execute effective controll over their territories (thanks to military support of Russia resp. USA, however). As a small folk it's helpfull to have mighty allies, ours could be some of the liberal democratic countries like Canada or the EU. However, international recognition is not a required criterion to form an independent nation - the effective control and means of self-defence is suffice fully.
It is possible to enforce right now certain key aspects of political independence and sovereignty,but not to the point of setting up a complete
state apparatus.We may for instance delineate on maps and then merely use on site a territory as a state would do it in certain respects,without
official or internationally recognized title of possession.One of the first acts of a politically separate and independent human community consists in
defining who are its members,and sorting out nationals from foreigners. Since such a differenciation does not really involve any physical act,it does not lend itself to any physical opposition either.Religious jews have done that for the last 3,000 years,that is having a definition of who is a jew, without having an independent state of theirs for most of that time. [..]
Possibilities you are describing are of course the way we can begin to solidify the community. However, I see a certain confusion on the proper use of term "state" while you actually mean "people". A "state" has authority and means to exercise power towards it's citizens, e.g. to enforce law and revenues flow, detain criminals and so on. How do you imagine performing of such actions on the territory of existing states without annexing their territory? Any activism in such a direction is undoubtedly a severe criminal behavior and will be not tolerated by any authorities! Sure, such structures do exist, they are called "state in state" (mafia, yakuza and the like)...
If we are describing the LGBT-people as a folk, it is quite another thing. We could legally organize us, raise money as membership dues and spend this money for purposes are good for our people. As a diasporic people/nation we would not differ in this relation from any other diasporic folk, such as Armenians or Jews or Chicanas. Indeed, many of such institution already exist, but unfortunately in a very rudimentary extent, if we consider the huge number of humans who fall into the Queer categorie.
But you are touching also another very interesting question, namely who does belong to the Queer People and who does not. I think, too many of the micronationalists tend (unfortunately) to claim the exclusive right upon the queer population without asking the people. Whereas it is fully legitimate to talk about the "Queer People" and "LGBT-community" from scientific point of view, it is absolutely unacceptable to regard someone automatically as citizen or claim the exclusive representation for the entire "gay tribe", whatever it can be. For example, the deceased "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea" was acting somewhat like it was the sole legitimate representative of the gay community on the world stage, as well as the "Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom" does in it's ORDINANCE OF CITIZENSHIP: "All Gays and Lesbians are automatically citizens of the COMMONWEALTH KINGDOM by birthright". I also remember that in a contribution "Who is Gay?" on the alt.politics.homosexuality forum dated 1 Feb. 1998 you (K6) have suggested to deprive gay men with descendants of their gay citizenship rights:
"Parenthood should be a factor in deciding who is gay and who isn`t. Alledged gay parents are,to all intents and purposes,part of hetro continuity,history and supremacy through their mostly heterosexual descendants.They have deliberately excluded homosexuality from the lives of other human beings of their own flesh and blood,by bringing and rearing them into a world where no individual has an honest and fair chance to become gay".
You shall admit, this notion to determine who is "truly gay" in such a restrictive form is highly questionable and excludes obviously gay people from our community for an actually honorable behaviour - giving live to new human being. We also cannot make an actually existing sexual activities of a person to be a criterion of "gayness" - instead, a self-estimation as "homosexual" shall suffice, so long no opposite behavior is proving something contrarily.
Generally, I think the answer to the question of who is sufficiently gay will be not that much easy and shall be discussed more intensely. Even the Jewish people have a set of detailed regulations on the subject of Jewish peoplehood, we probably would need something like this too. But, no matter how detailed such guildlines will be, there always will be some cases, where the decision will be made by simple common sense. Far more delicate question is e.g. how to treat bisexuals? In doubt, I personally tend to a more generous (inclusive) definitions.
:=SU
-
It seems to me that the construction of a gay gepolitical entity should start with the basement rather than with the roof.First by defining who is a citizen and what are his tasks as a agent and instrument of gay political independence.By confining ourselves to what we hold for certain - gay individuals - and cannot be deprived of by any foreign power,we would not exceed our present means.If we try now to go beyond,by setting up bodies and performing tasks which ressemble too much an elaborate state organisation,we offer targets which could be engaged and liquidated,without our being able to do anything to defend them.In other terms,we should confine ourselves what is possible in the historic
times we are living.Politics,after all,is the art of the possible.As for the definition of who is gay,we needed none or could rest content with a broad one only insofar as we did not intended to go beyond coexistence - if possible with the equality of rights - with non-gays.In the case of a secession,
we will need people capable of making of it a reality.With people of mixed loyalties,tied to interests and reservations which to me are essentially heterosexual,not only will we not achieve or retain political independence: we will encounter opposition to it even before we have achieved it.
K6
-
K6, you are definitely wrong. You think by establishing Homosexuality as a Race (such as Jews) will give us more equality or rights. Equality should be no matter who you are, or who you define yourself. Sexual Orientation is interesting, because you have Gay Jews, Gay Blacks, Gay Whites, Gay Asian, Gay Poor, Gay Rich, Gay Dumbs, Gay Smarts. Homosexuality does not limit itself to a select group of people that ever can be grouped together. That is one of the things I LOVE about the Gay Community. Diversity within Diversity. You say we need to define our "race" or "group". That is wrong. What is next? Are you gonna force people to join your group? OR better yet, the State of South Carolina will legalize the expulsion (to our now independent Gay Republic) all Gays & Lesbians.
I am going from the Basement Up. I am getting together a group of like minded people. Getting financial backing. We will then purchase a land mass/islands probably with some consultation. We will then build infrastructure and then move. We will declare independence. Obviously we will have a police force to guard the peace, and protections against foreign intrusion.
-
K6, you are definitely wrong. You think by establishing Homosexuality as a Race (such as Jews) will give us more equality or rights.
Equality of rights is something to be pursued by someone else than my humble self.The aim I am associated with is complete geopolitical independence for us gays.Since I believe in the just and clean cause of which I am a mere servant and instrument,I do not mind at all people who seek equality of rights.If they achieve their goal,gay political independence will no longer be necessary.But they do not have an unlimited amount
of time to succeed,whereas radicals like my humble self have all the time to do the same.I do not think that gays are a race or even a national
group.They rather fell into an international category,with corresponding means of action,both in space and in time.
K6
-
You shall admit, this notion to determine who is "truly gay" in such a restrictive form is highly questionable and excludes obviously gay people from our community for an actually honorable behaviour - giving live to new human being. We also cannot make an actually existing sexual activities of a person to be a criterion of "gayness" - instead, a self-estimation as "homosexual" shall suffice, so long no opposite behavior is proving something contrarily.
My political schooling is almost exclusively European (though I am a canadian).Thus quite unlike the one of our idealistic US and American colleagues.How are we to assess the probable and future course of action of other political actors ? As a disciple of Machiavelli (among others),I`d answer: on the sole basis of their earthly interests,in that totally disregarding religion,ethics,morals and personal sentiments.
K6
-
How are we to assess the probable and future course of action of other political actors ?
Surely, the uncertain developements in countries which are now liberal towards homossexuals are one of the reasons why this project should be realized. There must be aplace for us to retrieve in case of necessity, or it just might become too late. Paralelly, the cultural progress in the Diaspora would be intensified, as the most gays and lesbians would for sure stay were they are, but they no less belong to the entire community. You have right when you say that people with shared loyalties will probably not physically join the project but they still belong to us, as well. It might be advisable not to grant citizenship to children at all, instead a right for residency for dependents of a gay citizen. It would be also an option to sign treaties regulating binar citizenship - this would give an option for heterosexual children and not make them "stateless".
In my understanding, we would have to find a rather poor country with larger territorial posessions - so we would be able to change money for the land at an agreeble ratio. In case we succeed with establishing an economy, the neughbour countries would have some additional revenues from trade with us, I think. As long as our citizens do not make raids to their territory to perform the rapture on their adolescent boys, there is no sensible reason to attack us. >:)
The basic guildlines for estimation of future developements are clear - e.g it's pretty risky to settle in direct neighbourhood of a large, powerfull country, especially if this country has a long-term record of religiously motivated homophobia. Also it's risky to put your feet onto a territory, which is of strategic interest to another powerfull countries - e.g. because of its geopolitical position (e.g. important transport ways) or minerals or hystorical/religious meaning. The ideal course (politically) would be to choose a half-ways distant, rather barren island a bit aside of basic transport routes and make it a high-tech paradise. The relative lack of natural resources would make it of no interest to any distant greedy nation, but the labour power of inhabitants would provide sufficiently convinient life for them. However, there must be at least enough territory for economical activities and a half-ways acceptable climate.
Every generation will face specific problems and possible conflicts with other nations, but one can prevent at least those difficulties which can be predicted already at the present time.
-
Surely, the uncertain developements in countries which are now liberal towards homossexuals are one of the reasons why this project should be realized. There must be aplace for us to retrieve in case of necessity, or it just might become too late. Paralelly, the cultural progress in the Diaspora would be intensified, as the most gays and lesbians would for sure stay were they are, but they no less belong to the entire community. You have right when you say that people with shared loyalties will probably not physically join the project but they still belong to us, as well. It might be advisable not to grant citizenship to children at all, instead a right for residency for dependents of a gay citizen. It would be also an option to sign treaties regulating binar citizenship - this would give an option for heterosexual children and not make them "stateless".
A way of tackling the issue of children would consist in regarding them as without yet established sexual orientation an thus as stateless on a temporary basis.They would acquire a clearcut status - either nationals (gays) or foreigners (heterosexuals) - entirely on their own,separately
from their parents and once having become adults.They could not become nationals without deeds and by the mere fact that their parents were themselves nationals,if they were.In the micronation in which I am involved,it is almost impossible for anyone who is a parent to be recognized as gay (and thus as a national).Proof of acquisition of descendants outside heterosexuality is required,either a document of adoption or a medical record of assisted reproduction.And so far and in the area where the above mentionned micronation is established,no parent claiming to be gay was able to provide such documents,which automaticaly made of them heterosexuals.The problem with individuals who are parents is that they inaugurate their relation with us by imposing us the company of non-gays whom we have not chosen as guests,which is difficult to reconcile with geopolitical independence and separation.Not taking into account the completely egoistical aspect of parenthood in their case.There are plenty of young gays of whom a gay who wants to act as a parent could take care of and wherever possible adopt,without having his or her gayness questionned.
K6
-
In my understanding, we would have to find a rather poor country with larger territorial posessions - so we would be able to change money for the land at an agreeble ratio. In case we succeed with establishing an economy, the neughbour countries would have some additional revenues from trade with us, I think. As long as our citizens do not make raids to their territory to perform the rapture on their adolescent boys, there is no sensible reason to attack us. >:)
We could have problems the other way around,because of adolescent boys fleeing to our side,and claiming for motives which would not at first glance appear as unreasonnable to be gays.About one third of male adolescents have homosexual interests,most of the time on a transitory
basis.Melodramatic scenarios of international crisis could be elaborated on the basis of this example.
K6
-
The basic guildlines for estimation of future developements are clear - e.g it's pretty risky to settle in direct neighbourhood of a large, powerfull country, especially if this country has a long-term record of religiously motivated homophobia. Also it's risky to put your feet onto a territory, which is of strategic interest to another powerfull countries - e.g. because of its geopolitical position (e.g. important transport ways) or minerals or hystorical/religious meaning.
The hethro world being far more stronger than us in terms of mere figures,it is advisable that it remains divided,preferably in medium size or weak states.We could thus have to follow a course of encouraging separatism elsewhere for our own sake.The unification and geopolitical integration of mankind is a fine thing when contemplated superficially.But it fails to contemplate also a scenario where this would merely unite the world against us,whereas it is in our interest that the world remains divided.Gay political independence itself could hardly become a reality in a stable and unified world,whose components have no other concern than maintaining a status quo which doesn`t serve our interest.In north
America,the setting up of a gay independent state would have to await the disintegration of the US and possibly also of Canada.Much the same way the rebirth of Poland had to await the disintegration of the German,Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires in 1918.
K6
-
We could thus have to follow a course of encouraging separatism elsewhere for our own sake.The unification and geopolitical integration of mankind is a fine thing when contemplated superficially.But it fails to contemplate also a scenario where this would merely unite the world against us,whereas it is in our interest that the world remains divided.Gay political independence itself could hardly become a reality in a stable and unified world,whose components have no other concern than maintaining a status quo which doesn`t serve our interest.
Why, a perfect world wouldn't be such a bad place to live in! Europeans love their newly re-gained economic power and freedom to move to Italy or Greece without problems, all the benefits of a larger geopolitical entity. Also gays living in large stable democratic countries enjoy personal freedoms in a rather high extent. Sure, an empire of evil, consternate on our destruction, would be an awesome enemy - but also many smaller enemies can form a "coalition of the willing" and become highly dangerous. A stable Iran is probably a much better place to live in than the numerous mini-states in Afghanistan under Taliban. Therefore I do not see the necessity to mess with China, Russia and USA and seek their disintegration into many smaller, yet even more barbaric countries?! (Friends from these countries: please forgive me the rhetorical fervour! >:))
In my view, we can clearly support oppressed peoples such as are Tibetans, but we should not intervene into conflicts which can be solved by the parties themeselves in a way of political discourse (e.g. Canada/Québec). Heterosexuals (even not most of them) aren't a priory our enemies, why should we wish them any harm? On contrary, we should seek to gain as many of them as possible as our allies, though being conscious of our difference.
Even from the practical point of view, in order not to endanger our brothers and sisters living in other states, it would be advisable not to participate in activities directed against moderately gay-friendly states. It's clear that any hostile action against these sovereign nations would only nurture resentments against our people and could bring them immediately and unnecessarily into danger. Actions against countries which have declared war on homosexuals by implementation of death penalty or imprisonment would be, of course, a legitimate self-defence.
Gay separatism is not a value on its own, we can't sacrifice innocent people for political adventurism as a state goal. It's true, the Polish have achieved their independence in course of the First World war... But we shouldn't forget that this process was connected to millions of dead on the battlefields of the WWI and during the Russian revolution. Not to forget that just 20 years later the Polish got lost their independence again and the following WWII swept away further 50 millions lives - I don't think one can wish such developments be initiated again. There must be other ways to gain a self-control over a piece of land, taking into account legitimate interests of other nations, especially the future neighbours. Why seek an armed conflict, when an agreeable solution could be achieved on a peaceful way? For example, India was very generous to Tibetans who had to flee from their homeland, and gave them land and possibilities for national self-determination for free. The Tibetans of course didn't secede then from India, but they have achieved many of their goals within this frame, e.g. offering refuge and life in dignity and work to their people.
Why not find our own way with peacefull means and look for a friendly assistance from a larger thin-populated country like Canada? Sure, not everything is en rose there, but we are also not looking for a territory in size of Québec, do we?
:=SU
-
Why not find our own way with peacefull means and look for a friendly assistance from a larger thin-populated country like Canada? Sure, not everything is en rose there, but we are also not looking for a territory in size of Québec, do we?
:=SU
Any country of our own we set up will have to contain enough population to be effectively occupied and,the case arising,defended.It should
not be lower than 8 to 10 millions in a place about the size of Quebec,and preferably in a part of the world which is thinly populated like Quebec
precisely.When a country is too small - like Israel - ,it takes only a military defeat on the borders to be overrun.We will need some depth for purposes of defense,and enough population either to repel an invasion or to resist a foreign occupation.
K6
-
[..]It should not be lower than 8 to 10 millions in a place about the size of Quebec,and preferably in a part of the world which is thinly populated like Quebec precisely.When a country is too small - like Israel - ,it takes only a military defeat on the borders to be overrun.We will need some depth for purposes of defense,and enough population either to repel an invasion or to resist a foreign occupation. [..]
Hm, in the most developed countries the urban population tends to be somewhat 80%, so there is no real need to posses large territories to flourish and prospere as a nation. A small territory is probably even easier to defend: one can concentrate ressources on a relatively small space and use them most effectively. From the military point of view, taking an urban area is the most dangerous enterprise, unless you really bomb it platy. And, there are for sure no free territories in the size of Québec, so what are you planning to do with the current heterosexual inhabitants???? Sterilize and gather into "refugee camps"? Brrrh! Certainly you don't mean this.
While considering absolute numbers of citizens of a (future) gay state we shouldn't forget that the entire population would be renewed solely by immigration. Set the average age of immigrants to be 30 years and the average life expectancy to be 70 years, the required renewal rate would be 2,5 % of the absolute population. This makes at least 200.000 immigrants per year, which is pretty much. Try to persuade so many people yearly that they should leave their homes, jobs and families and so on. Regarding the current opposition among the LGBT-community to the separatist movement as such, we should be very conservative in our estimations. For a functioning city with major institutions, i.m.h.o., some 250.000 to 500.000 citizens would suffice, which is pretty much, regarding the efforts necessary to maintain the population.
-
Gay separatism is not a value on its own, we can't sacrifice innocent people for political adventurism as a state goal.
I must tell this to gays,that their lives will amount to an adventure anyway.Outside the context of a quest for self-determination,it will in all likelyhood be an adventure without fortune,glory or historical record.
K6
-
Why, a perfect world wouldn't be such a bad place to live in! Europeans love their newly re-gained economic power and freedom to move to Italy or Greece without problems, all the benefits of a larger geopolitical entity.
The European Union has the potential to bypass the United States as a world economic power.However,the EU was also unable to
maintain on its own peace and order in its Yugloslav backyard in the early 90s.And it has no common goal or foreign policy with regard
to the situation in Irak.
K6
-
Hm, in the most developed countries the urban population tends to be somewhat 80%, so there is no real need to posses large territories to flourish and prospere as a nation. A small territory is probably even easier to defend: one can concentrate ressources on a relatively small space and use them most effectively. From the military point of view, taking an urban area is the most dangerous enterprise, unless you really bomb it platy. And, there are for sure no free territories in the size of Québec, so what are you planning to do with the current heterosexual inhabitants???? Sterilize and gather into "refugee camps"? Brrrh! Certainly you don't mean this.
Wherever we want to establish a gay independent state,and whatever the size of that state,there will already be people living there who will not be gay.We are not saddled at present with that issue,because whatever we set up now will be parallel and not separated yet from already existing entities.If existing geopolitical entities disintegrate into chaos,demographic changes and shifts will occur anyway - certain horizontal,others vertical - even if we have absolutely no part in them.What we will not grab under such specific circumstances,others will anyway.
K6
-
While considering absolute numbers of citizens of a (future) gay state we shouldn't forget that the entire population would be renewed solely by immigration.
That is correct.The country where I live (Canada) gets about half of its yearly human replacements by way of immigration.The lowest estimate of the world gay population is of about 175 million.I count here only males,and only those who remain exclusively gay during their entire adult lives (5% of males).That is ten times the jewish population,which in part only populates the State of Israel.I do not think that we would lack human ressources.We could lack place to greet them,if the gay independent state we establish was too small.I would not expect most gays to move to a gay country.The majority would simply regard such a state as an insurance against bad times on the hetro side,and rest content in investing economically in it rather than moving to it.It`s a situation unlike the one of a traditional nation-state without real potential of support abroad.
K6
-
I do find it unacceptable the idea of Displacement. Were not going to take over "quebec" or a similar sized area. Were not going to do a revolution, control people, or discriminate against hetros. We are not going to stoop to their level. The only solution is to aquire a piece of land that has no inhabitants, there are plenty of wilderness of unhabitted areas. Perhaps you could purchase an entire farm etc... For me a decent sized island will do. I don't expect much more than 5000 population, and to be highly urbanized.
I still am opposed to a "Gay" republic. I'm doing Fridet for a variety of reasons, mainly the idea that our current Kingdoms/Republics/States have failed us a mankind, and I beleive change must be started by Example, and more voices in the International Community.
There has also been, no offence, a blatant hack of my post. It has gone way out of hand, and you guys seem to be discussing with yourselfs. Also, to K6, try to post all your thoughts in a single post not repetedely posting. It gets annoying when your reading.
-
I do find it unacceptable the idea of Displacement. Were not going to take over "quebec" or a similar sized area. Were not going to do a revolution, control people, or discriminate against hetros. We are not going to stoop to their level. The only solution is to aquire a piece of land that has no inhabitants, there are plenty of wilderness of unhabitted areas. Perhaps you could purchase an entire farm etc... For me a decent sized island will do. I don't expect much more than 5000 population, and to be highly urbanized.
I still am opposed to a "Gay" republic. I'm doing Fridet for a variety of reasons, mainly the idea that our current Kingdoms/Republics/States have failed us a mankind, and I beleive change must be started by Example, and more voices in the International Community.
There has also been, no offence, a blatant hack of my post. It has gone way out of hand, and you guys seem to be discussing with yourselfs. Also, to K6, try to post all your thoughts in a single post not repetedely posting. It gets annoying when your reading.
Lands with no inhabitants,as I am myself so to speak payed to know it,aren`t without inhabitants for no reason.They are probably uninhabitable.Like for instance Antarctica,which is not even claimed by existing countries.Or most of the territory of Canada,which is empty of population.Islands offer tempting opportunities,but they are vulnerable to blockade.If a state is established on and island,it must have a strong
navy capable of maintining openned its lines of communication by sea,like England has done so for centuries.
K6
-
Regarding the current opposition among the LGBT-community to the separatist movement as such, we should be very conservative in our estimations.
The so-called LGBT opposition to a separatist gay movement posseses no organisation comparable to the one which could be raised on the basis
of the idea of gay self-determination.Organisation shall prevail over the lack of it,dont` worry.It shall certainly prevail over the confusion entailed in a constituency which has not so far sorted properly gays from non-gays.The opposition to gay self-determination will sooner or later,and sooner rather than later,be cornered into summoning the assistance of the imperial hethro power in its dispute and argument with us.
K6
-
I still am opposed to a "Gay" republic. I'm doing Fridet for a variety of reasons, mainly the idea that our current Kingdoms/Republics/States have failed us a mankind, and I beleive change must be started by Example, and more voices in the International Community.
Surely, there is (and always will be) a strong opposition to the idea of a gay homeland. So what? There is also a strong support for the idea. The opponents will stay where they are, and supporters will emigrate or at least help how they can. There was never our intention to force the entire gay population into supporting of the idea; our intention is to win sympathysants by explaining and discussing the project. By the way, the early Jewish State movement from beginning was fiercefully opposed by large parts of the Jewish population and various Jewish leaders. This didn't disturb the state of Israel to be established finally (I recommend the lecture of the book "The Jewish State" by Theodor Herzl, in our library :L).
There has also been, no offence, a blatant hack of my post. It has gone way out of hand, and you guys seem to be discussing with yourselfs. Also, to K6, try to post all your thoughts in a single post not repetedely posting. It gets annoying when your reading.
Why, what post was "hacked"? The moderation log shows only 3 recent entries (both myself editing my own posts: 519/523), so non of the moderators had changed anything from you (btw, you would recognize such an action also by yourself by "Last edited by XYZ" in italics). Generally, we do not edit posts, especially not in this section. If a registered member has posted something highly offensive or vulgar, he will be warned and asked to edit by himself (or the entire post will be deleted/moved to archive). What is possible in this board ("Coral Sea Café"), is that someone can use your name while posting - we therefore do warn explicitely in the description of this board about this possibility. That's why it's better to register and post only when you are loged in. I hope this helps, otherwise please send me or Vizier more precise description of the problem (e.g. which contribution was edited/hacked and maybe a screenshot). OK?
We are interested in your ideas, though this not necesserely means we always agree with them (we hardly have a consens within the group itself - this makes it so interesting!). :T
-
Surely, there is (and always will be) a strong opposition to the idea of a gay homeland. So what? There is also a strong support for the idea. The opponents will stay where they are, and supporters will emigrate or at least help how they can. There was never our intention to force the entire gay population into supporting of the idea; our intention is to win sympathysants by explaining and discussing the project. By the way, the early Jewish State movement from beginning was fiercefully opposed by large parts of the Jewish population and various Jewish leaders. This didn't disturb the state of Israel to be established finally (I recommend the lecture of the book "The Jewish State" by Theodor Herzl, in our library :L).
The best preview of the establishment of a gay independent state is perhaps to be sampled among the current coming out of gays in gay venues,as well as in migrations of gays from intolerant countries to more tolerant ones.The majority of gays won`t leave,but a sufficient number will maintain that country of ours in existence by immigrating to it.Tolerant heterosexual countries will constitute a transit area for gays living in other parts of the world.Though the zionist model offers tempting analogies,our situation is different from the one of the Jews in important respects.Like our numbers,for example.We are currently ten times more numerous than the Jews at the lowest estimate,and this will allow us
to establish an independent state which will not become the dependent of a superpower for its protection and existence.The zionist project
might end in a fiasco because,not having as much human ressources,it has placed itself under the total dependence of the United States which
is his only ally.But what will become of the State of Israel the day the US ceases to be a world power,which will unavoidedly happen ? Another
respect in which we differ fundamentaly from the Jews is that we have been existing since the origins of mankind,and that we will always exist.Thus,we will never run out of human ressources from abroad,and we will find ourselves in a position to follow in a quiet contempt the decline and downfall of world powers and empires,whose final days in anarchy will provide us even more immigrants.
K6
-
You are certainly right that we could form a superpower, if all human beings with homosexual desire would determine themselves as gays (likewise queers) and immigrate to the said gay homeland with all their possessions.
Unfortunately, the reality in which the gay homeland movement founds itself in present days is looking differently. The most homosexuals in countries with highly oppressive public opinion and censorship even don't know they belong to our species, as they were always told and, no doubt, often believe by themselves that they are "the only perverts" there (this phenomenon the older of us know very well even from the "free world"). It would require immense technological investments from our side to reach these unhappy souls by means of satellite television and other propaganda instruments. Second problem (for the movement) is that probably the most gays and lesbians in developed countries follow the "integrationalist" vision and are somewhat hostile towards the "separatist" movement or do not take us seriously. Surely, once the gay state is established, the amount of supporters will grow, but the decisive step towards establishing of such a state will be extremely difficult. The integrationalists themselves are of course free to follow their vision (which is certainly legitimate and good), but so are we. We have lots of propaganda work to do and are, as a movement, not very successful at the moment - there is very much of propaganda and organisatory work to do.
Therefore we should recognize the success of the Jewish State project properly. They began with little and have achieved much. I have an ambivalent feelings towards the politics of the Israeli government and condemn their disruptive actionism against Palestinians severely. Nevertheless, I am a friend of the Jewish people and cannot agree to a statement that USA are "the only friend" they have in the world. Regarding their humble population in comparison to the population of their enemies in the last war, Israelis have defended their country with remarkable courage. They received weapons and financial help, but I am not aware that units of US-army were fighting on their side? The Israeli State is so far indeed a success story, and we would be lucky to succeed with something similar, be it at least a city-state or a new "Gay Hanse League" of such settlements.
-
You are certainly right that we could form a superpower, if all human beings with homosexual desire would determine themselves as gays (likewise queers) and immigrate to the said gay homeland with all their possessions.
Unfortunately, the reality in which the gay homeland movement founds itself in present days is looking differently. The most homosexuals in countries with highly oppressive public opinion and censorship even don't know they belong to our species, as they were always told and, no doubt, often believe by themselves that they are "the only perverts" there (this phenomenon the older of us know very well even from the "free world"). It would require immense technological investments from our side to reach these unhappy souls by means of satellite television and other propaganda instruments. Second problem (for the movement) is that probably the most gays and lesbians in developed countries follow the "integrationalist" vision and are somewhat hostile towards the "separatist" movement or do not take us seriously. Surely, once the gay state is established, the amount of supporters will grow, but the decisive step towards establishing of such a state will be extremely difficult. The integrationalists themselves are of course free to follow their vision (which is certainly legitimate and good), but so are we. We have lots of propaganda work to do and are, as a movement, not very successful at the moment - there is very much of propaganda and organisatory work to do.
Therefore we should recognize the success of the Jewish State project properly. They began with little and have achieved much. I have an ambivalent feelings towards the politics of the Israeli government and condemn their disruptive actionism against Palestinians severely. Nevertheless, I am a friend of the Jewish people and cannot agree to a statement that USA are "the only friend" they have in the world. Regarding their humble population in comparison to the population of their enemies in the last war, Israelis have defended their country with remarkable courage. They received weapons and financial help, but I am not aware that units of US-army were fighting on their side? The Israeli State is so far indeed a success story, and we would be lucky to succeed with something similar, be it at least a city-state or a new "Gay Hanse League" of such settlements.
Establishing a gay independent state as a medium size world power would be enough.We must be cautious with the idea of becoming ourselves a superpower,for this would exceed by far our means,and we would thus only repeat a common error in heterosexual history: imperialism.We
must therefore try to follow a middle course,between being too weak to remain independent on our own,or too saddled with international
responsibilities to sustain them indefinitely.Once a gay independent state is in existence,it wouldn`t need that much publicity: heterosexual
states,and perhaps the less tolerant among them,would make us a publicity.The best among us would see through hethro lies as we did ourselves,and join us.On the issue of the State of Israel,I am not shocked in the least by the way it treats the Palestinians.In that respect I could not be enrolled in an anti-zionist front.But I am,as a philosemite,greatly embarrassed by the alliance of Israel with the United States.There
could not be something more temporary than a superpower like the US.I do not understand how a people with such an acute sense of continuity and eternity like the Jews could have put themselves in such a situation,where their state could dissapear from the map not long
after the downfall of the US empire,their only protector.There are such difficult times,in the life of a gay political activist,when you have to contemplate parting from the very ones who where your historical models and examples.Though I am myself a great admirer of the Poles,I would turn against them if the gay interest required it.
K6
-
We are interested in your ideas, though this not necesserely means we always agree with them (we hardly have a consens within the group itself - this makes it so interesting!). :T [/color]
(Mogul was hereby debating with the representative of Fridet)
I have a practical suggestion.
The representative of Fridet might have the impression that the thread he himself initiated was hijacked.Which is in part true.There arises here a problem of difference in the respective educational systems in which we originated.Mogul is capable,as most Europeans,of elaborate discussion about matters having to do with geopolitics,history and geography.I have no problem at all in following him in his assessments,though I am not
a European myself.US educational systems are different.They provide Americans with little information about the subjects under discussion here: geopolitics,history,geography and general knowledge of foreign countries and languages.
It remains that our Americans colleagues do know their own immediate geopolitical environment,the one of their country the US.They are the ones who can brief us on the subject and thus complete the general knowledge we have about it.One scenario of gay political independence will have to do with taking advantage of the disintegration of some empire or superpower,and having a slice of it.My suggestion would therefore be the following: that our US colleagues englighten us on the internal fault lines of the US,as they see them on site,in their own words.This will form part of the contribution to this forum,and open them a place in the debate.
K6
-
I guess I need to explain, "hacked post". That does not mean editing or deleting my posts, rather that infers the constant atempts and acheivement of MOVING a topic off its original topic. The post was about the difference between a "gay" kingdom & fridet, and my disagreements with a "gay" kingdom.
You make an interesting reference to the State of Israel (in which I have lived and attended school). The State of Israel isn't Jewish State, rather the Majority of its Citizens are Jewish. In fact the Majority of Jews around the world do not support the State of Israel's Actions. This may be also noted by the CONSTANT minoirity governments in Israel. Though any Jew can immigrate at will, that does not make a state Jewish. People do not choose a state because they are something (English, Jewish, Gay). Rather because of Economic Reasons or Poltical Belief Reasons. It just Happens that most English are born in England, and most Germans are born in Germany, thus evolving the Idea of a "German State" when in fact this is pure lies. As our world grows smaller this will become even more evident, and the EU has really shown the light on this. Sometimes you notice that Hispanics or Asians in America stay together. You might say that this is an arguement against my ideas, rather this is because they come from a place where they have been taught the same beleifs and values and continue these on. There are many cases where bridges fall because of new Economic or Belief reasons.
Lastly, I think hiding in corners or sectarianism is bad for any group of people and will make things more difficult, not easier. I think the best example of this is Black's in Southern USA. Everyone in this world has something to give if they can clear their minds, open their hearts and reach for true potential. And, QUIT THINKING that EVERYONE this ISN'T like YOU is INHERENTLY EVIL. Straight people are not evil, but rather have been taught evil.
-
Lastly, I think hiding in corners or sectarianism is bad for any group of people and will make things more difficult, not easier. I think the best example of this is Black's in Southern USA. Everyone in this world has something to give if they can clear their minds, open their hearts and reach for true potential. And, QUIT THINKING that EVERYONE this ISN'T like YOU is INHERENTLY EVIL. Straight people are not evil, but rather have been taught evil.
I make no such distinctions as good or evil in the context of a political discussion.If I were to do so,I would concur without much difficulty that all heterosexuals aren`t evil.Happy and stable heterosexuals do not mind about us.But that is not relevant in places and countries where they aren`t in power,so that we may deal with them under relatively advantageous conditions.With unhappy and unstable heterosexuals,and there are all too many of them,in power in too many places and countries,we must expect trouble.And our difficulties have lasted long enough.I won`t be among those who will allow the heterosexuals another 2,000 years to reform their societies,if we can seceed from them before that.
K6
-
The State of Israel isn't Jewish State, rather the Majority of its Citizens are Jewish. In fact the Majority of Jews around the world do not support the State of Israel's Actions. This may be also noted by the CONSTANT minority governments in Israel. Though any Jew can immigrate at will, that does not make a state Jewish. People do not choose a state because they are something (English, Jewish, Gay). Rather because of Economic Reasons or Poltical Belief Reasons. It just Happens that most English are born in England, and most Germans are born in Germany, thus evolving the Idea of a "German State" when in fact this is pure lies. As our world grows smaller this will become even more evident, and the EU has really shown the light on this. Sometimes you notice that Hispanics or Asians in America stay together. [..] There are many cases where bridges fall because of new Economic or Belief reasons. Lastly, I think hiding in corners or sectarianism is bad for any group of people and will make things more difficult, not easier.
Oh yes, this discussion is of a more general nature: it's not only about "queers" and "straights", it's about nationalism as such. I am afraid, in this question no consensus can be achieved a priory: it's because the nationalist's worldview is differing from the worldview of an internationalist. I recommend the lecture of a series of (excellent) articles from Paul Treanor, who is discussing the issue extensively:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/plana.html
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/8.html
http://www.nationalismproject.org/
You can be a nationalist or an internationalist, but you can't claim that Israel is not a Jewish state or Germany is not a German state or that any other country isn't heterosexual country. The prevalent culture determines the nature of the state, and only few countries are true multinational states (Vielvölkerstaat).
I confess that I am a gay nationalist in a good sense of this word: I believe we are an ethnos on our own (or at least can form one with a bit more efforts); I also believe that it would be inherently good for us and the world if gays and lesbians would have a country for our own. I believe that humans of different nationalities have much in common but they are still different. I am not afraid of these differences, as I regard the diversity as positive value. I believe that Germans, Jews, Mongolians, Australians and so on are not more and not less worth because of being whatever nationality they are, but I also believe that every nation/people has a right for self-determination.
Chinese are in principle not worse than Tibetans are, but Chinese have absolutely no right to impose their culture upon the Tibetan culture and murder everyone who resists them. The same is true for gays and straights: we are no better than heterosexuals, but we have a right for our own culture. Put on your television set (with 20-30 channels), tell me what you see and dare claim that we are not an oppressed culture.
Everyone in this world has something to give if they can clear their minds, open their hearts and reach for true potential. And, QUIT THINKING that EVERYONE this ISN'T like YOU is INHERENTLY EVIL. Straight people are not evil, but rather have been taught evil.
Though I agree that no one is evil just because she/he is different from me, I must tell you some people are inherently evil. And I really mean it: very, very bad people. They rape, torture and kill men, women and children, pickle their eyes out, smash their genitals and perform similar cruelties (the list is very long) while laughing and jerking off. These people can be loving husbands and parents, but they nevertheless are inherently evil. Christians believe that you should preach to such people to make their minds clear and hearts open, I believe that one rather should do the world a favour and prevent such evil people from performing more cruelties. Going a step back (to those who "solely" enjoy "fag bashing" or are instigating to this Volkssport), I must say that everyone has a right to self-defence. No need to explain to a skinhead with a baseball bat that you are also a loving human being (he will not listen anyway), but better grasp an iron stick yourself timely and teach him better.
Having this said, I of course do not believe that all or even most heterosexuals are evil creatures and wish us any harm. Many of them are supportive from this reason or the other, few are really accepting us as equals. Nevertheless, most of them never understand us and, while loving us, still regard our sexuality as inferior and would wish us (with best intentions and out of heart, of course) to "heal" and change to heterosexuals. At least in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim world, homosexuality will probably remain an "issue" for the next thousand years (humans have proved themselves to be incredibly stupid). Sure, in the last decades remarkable successes were achieved in some western countries, but they might be of a temporary nature. As the history teaches us, the former friendly neighbours can quickly turn to be your enemies (Germany 1933-1945, Yugoslavia 1991-1999, Rwanda 1994) and the cute polite boy next door might join the militia who will escort you to the execution place.
You think I am exaggerating awfully? Ask the older of your Jewish friends, they might tell you what their parents/grandparents were thinking 1920 in Europe. In former soviet Russia the religion was believed to be stamped out entirely and enlightenment and socialistic values were incorporated by the majority of citizens - you would not believe to what extent the moral decay and spread of religious barbary occurred in the last 15 years. I do not at all trust into the "good" and "noble" human nature and the never-ending progress of the human race.
-
I guess I need to explain, "hacked post". That does not mean editing or deleting my posts, rather that infers the constant atempts and acheivement of MOVING a topic off its original topic. The post was about the difference between a "gay" kingdom & fridet, and my disagreements with a "gay" kingdom.
Ah, so it was a simple misunderstanding. You should be more careful with certain words, as they usually cause "red" alarm in this forum. :+ There are no special rules in the Café, but we generally desire to comfort everybody. O:) If you wish, we can splitt this thread with your initial post forming a separate topic. Would this help?
(http://de.geocities.com/vanrozenheim/images/rabbit.jpg)
-
Martin Luther King Jr. said "The curve of justice always bends for those that are right". I 100% agree with that statement. If you look in history, it has always been a progress for the right. You might mention the Holocaust or Slavery or Blah Blah Blah. Things in fact that had NOTHING to do with Gays (except the holocaust) or Straights really. However, good eventually prevailed.
We are a mere DROP in the bucket of life. Our time is that of a a Flower, here one day and gone the next. Our IMPACT is here FOREVER.
One must remember that for ENTERNITY, gays will be born on EVERY corner of this earth. And my children (when I get them) may not be gay, but be str8.
I was born in S.Korea by two Norwegian Parents. I have lived in USA, UK, Israel, S.Korea, Norway. I'm probably what you would call an Internationalist. I agree with you, Germany is a "German" state, but only because the Majority of people in it Identify as German. Nationalism is for Fools, your people will not stand by you for being "Gay" or "German". They will stand by you because they BELEIVE the same as you. Evangelical Christians are PERFECT example of this. They live in almost every country known (and I hate them) but have yet a sense of unity, defense for each other, and common beleifs. I should know my older sister is one.
Its human nature to want to Indentify and be part of a superiour group. Jews do it, Gays do it, Germans didi it. Norwegian do it, Americans do it. I could go on forever. Hardly ever is that correct or wise, exspecially when they have all failed us. Most gays do SHIT for other gays, no offence. If every gay person stood up today and asked to be heard, things would happen so much faster, but since they are so busy getting laid and clubbing, well... (not that I blame them, its just human nature).
Division never solved anything (even in math class). I think any Gay Kingdom will have the same fate of the Coral Seas, because we are SO Diverse.
-
Martin Luther King Jr. said "The curve of justice always bends for those that are right". I 100% agree with that statement. If you look in history, it has always been a progress for the right. You might mention the Holocaust or Slavery or Blah Blah Blah. Things in fact that had NOTHING to do with Gays (except the holocaust) or Straights really. However, good eventually prevailed.
In the world of realpolitics,it is possible to trust in part other political actors.But trusting them entirely is not warranted by what history teaches us
about human nature,and makes us appear as not credible as political actors ourselves,and even more specifically as adversaries.A gay people without a state or at least something ressembling a state apparatus is not a credible adversary.There is no risk involved in taking away the rights of people who aren`t credible adversaries,or in abandonning them as allies.
K6
-
I confess that I am a gay nationalist in a good sense of this word: I believe we are an ethnos on our own (or at least can form one with a bit more efforts); I also believe that it would be inherently good for us and the world if gays and lesbians would have a country for our own.
At first glance,we gays seem to constitute an ethnos.But we differ from national groups in matters which have to do with time and space.We
aren`t a local human group as are nations.We aren`t either a human group which was formed in recent historical times,like European nations
which appeared on the map over the last thousand years.In certain respects,we are an international group.And our methods of political action
are bound to be in certain respects international,since no local gay population has any chance to conquer on its own.Gay self-determination is bound to be the result of an international effort of cooperation,or there will simply be no gay self-determination in human history.Being an international group belittles in no way the idea of a gay independent state,on the contrary.Actually,it makes it stronger in a moral and organisational way than a classical nation-state limited in time and space.
K6
-
If you look in history, it has always been a progress for the right. You might mention the Holocaust or Slavery or Blah Blah Blah. Things in fact that had NOTHING to do with Gays (except the holocaust) or Straights really. However, good eventually prevailed.
I wouldn't call 50.000.000 dead during the WW2 a "triumph of the good". Neither can I recognize any progress in human race, which is now perfectly able to extinguish itself from the face of the planet by pressing 2 or 3 red power bottons. You have good right to believe anything you want but you can't expect other people taking your beliefs for the only possible truth. I for my part would be happy if there would be a place on this planet where gays or lesbians from hostile countries could escape to.
Why are you this much upset about the idea of a gay nation? Cann't you imaging that many people might have serious reasons for pursuing this goal without seeking to do any harm to you or any friendly heterosexuals? Till now you haven't expressed hart feelings against existence of China, USA, Nigeria or whatever other nation state, so why this fervor against the gay state? If you think that this is nothing for you, fine - no one is urging you into it. You can preserve your own beliefs, care for the homeless, the animals or whatever, but let the others do what they believe is more important for them. Just show some of the tolerance you are pleadging for and accept this.
There are several quotations from Theodor Herzl which I like very much, they are:
"Naturally, the pressure inspires in us hostility against our oppressors-and our hostility in turn increases the pressure. It is impossible to escape this vicious circle. "No!" some soft-hearted idealists will say. 'No! It is possible - through the innate goodness of man which needs to be brought out.' Is it really necessary for me to demonstrate what sentimental drivel this is? Anyone who wanted to base an improvement of conditions upon the goodness of all men would certainly be writing a Utopia!"
"Our national character is too famous in history and, despite all degradations, too noble to make its decline desirable. [..] We are a people - our enemies have made us one without our volition, as has always happened in history. Affliction makes us stand by one another, and at such times we suddenly discover our strength. Yes, we are strong enough to form a state, and a model state at that. We have all the human and material resources required for it."
"However, the fact that I draw this conclusion ingenuously and guided only by the truth will probably net me the opposition and enmity of those Jews who are in comfortable circumstances. Insofar as it is only a matter of private interests held by people who feel endangered because they are narrow-minded or cowardly, they might be passed over with contemptuous laughter, for the cause of the poor and downtrodden is more important. But from the outset I wish to keep any erroneous ideas from arising, particularly the notion that Jewish property might be harmed if this plan ever materialized. [..] If, on the other hand, my plan never becomes anything but a piece of literature, things will remain as they are anyway."
"If any or all of French Jewry protest against this plan, saying that they are already "assimilated," my answer is simple: The whole thing is none of their business. They are Israelitic Frenchmen; splendid! But this is a private affair of the Jews."
I couldn't have said it better! :=SU
-
I do, and so did Jews back before Israel, have a problem with a Nation claiming they represent "Gays" or "Jews". You can go independent or call yourself this or that, but you will NEVER represent the gays.
I have a problem with people stealing the voice of any people. I am not stealing a voice, I'm creating a voice. The fact is the MAJORITY of Jews still live out side Israel. In fact, there are MORE Jews in America then in Israel. Again, my previous post talked about this.
I hope this relates my problem with a "Gay" kingdom and why it will NEVER be established as a true voice. America has a huge history of Bullying Americans to vote or think a certain way just because they are American. I would hate to see this also happen to gays.
-
I do, and so did Jews back before Israel, have a problem with a Nation claiming they represent "Gays" or "Jews". You can go independent or call yourself this or that, but you will NEVER represent the gays.
Why, no one is talking about representation of every single Jew or every single Homosexual! Neither does my (German) government represent my personal opinion on every single issue, but nevertheless I (and my ego) must bear this injustice... There are lots of topics which could be adressed by a "gay government" without causing outcry of "assimilated" homosexuals - e.g. the question of human rights in hostile countries, equal social protection or medical supply for gay people suffering from AIDS and the like. One can talk on behalf of somebody, without pretending to be charged with representation, right? A "gay government" would, of course, rightfully represent only the citizens of the "gay state" and affiliated gays in diaspora; nevertheless its actions can be directed towars benefit of the entire LGBT population.
-
I do, and so did Jews back before Israel, have a problem with a Nation claiming they represent "Gays" or "Jews". You can go independent or call yourself this or that, but you will NEVER represent the gays.
Beg you pardon,but the representation of the interest of the gay people on an international plane shall be a matter of power politics.Those without organisation will represent no one.
K6