GLR Forum
General Forum => Gay Homeland - General discussions => Topic started by: donClark on Sat, Apr 30, 2005, 04:18
-
I honestly do think that we need a homeland. Somewhere that we can go, to feel safe from harm, and safe from homophobia. Somewhere that we can walk down the street holding hands with our partners, or friends. Where we can marry the ones that we love, and where we can die without fear that our loved ones will be absent from our rooms.
We need to have a government that represents all gay people, that is for gay people. A government that answers to the people only. We need to have a government that has a mandate to do no harm to gay people, and all rights be given to the citizens no matter what their sexual orentation is. Because I assume there will be heterosexual people living there as well. Though in my view there shall be NO heterosexual people allowed into the goverment that is elected, it should be saved for gay people only
Don
-
Well, Don, I agree with you. I am also even inclined to agree about making our homeland bar str8 people from being allowed to hold public office - why not? But this throws open the entire spectre of our being discriminatory and exclusionary, which we aim and strive not to be in basic concept... an interesting idea and worthy of debate! Anyone else? I think this is definitely something we should all discuss. Should non-gays (friends and str8s) be allowed to hold public office (elected) in any future gay homeland?
Also, just how inclusive should we be? Would we have a quota system as other countries have viz. foreign nationals, but one based on a limitation of no more than X% straight (non-gay) of the total population? It would appear useful, as, after all, if the place eventually becomes overrun with non-gays, it would all be in vain, no?
-
Hm, sounds like Netherlands to me... ;) Generally, you have right, Don. Of course, in some countries this dream already became true, but unfortunately in the bigger part of this planet gays and lesbians live quite unsafe and are deprived of basic human rights such as freedom to live in peace with a beloved one and stand for eachother. In many countries gays live under death penalty danger or at least are threatened by long years in prison. For all these people a possibility to find anew home in a safe environment, however poor from economical point of view, would be maybe the last chance to rescue their lives and freedom. But also for those who suffer under social oppression in some parts of the "western world" it would possibly give a chance for a free and self-determined live.
I honestly do think that we need a homeland. Somewhere that we can go, to feel safe from harm, and safe from homophobia. Somewhere that we can walk down the street holding hands with our partners, or friends. Where we can marry the ones that we love, and where we can die without fear that our loved ones will be absent from our rooms.
As to the government, this would do the same job as any good government shall do: care for its people at the best of its ability. I am sure that the few heterosexuals, who would choose to join our effort, are as much appropriate for any responsible position, as a gay man or a lesbian woman can be. I don't think we should discriminate against anybody, especially not against sexual minorities. ;D ;D ;D Because WE know the best, how it feels like when you are discriminated in jour job because your sexual preferences are different from the majority. A straight secretary of defense is as good as anybody else! ;D
We need to have a government that represents all gay people, that is for gay people. A government that answers to the people only. We need to have a government that has a mandate to do no harm to gay people, and all rights be given to the citizens no matter what their sexual orentation is. Because I assume there will be heterosexual people living there as well. Though in my view there shall be NO heterosexual people allowed into the goverment that is elected, it should be saved for gay people only.
-
Jesus, NO! Please, no quota system! In order to ensure that gays and lesbians stay the majority (as this appears to be politically desired), there are a lot of different instruments. Whereas gays and lesbians would be enabled to immigrate alone due to their sexual orientation (which is related to their oppression in other countries), a heterosexual person would have to present good reason to persuade the immigration office that his application should be accepted. If the said heterosexual individuum is being oppressed in his homeland, he or she normally has possibility to apply for asylum in many other countries in Western Europe or North Nmerica. Of course, in very urgent cases the person should be accepted, but this will probably cause no problems. The second contingent of immigrants will consist of people with urgently required qualifications, no matter gay or straight. As there are many gay or lesbian people with high qualifications, they would probably come by free peaces in higher amounts than their heterosexual colleagues.
All in all, I do not think that straights would come in big hords ;) neither are they expected to cause serious problems. Besides, what straight boy would come by free peaces to a country full of gay men and no other women that fully desinterested butchy lesbians? ;D ;D ;D
Also, just how inclusive should we be? Would we have a quota system as other countries have viz. foreign nationals, but one based on a limitation of no more than X% straight (non-gay) of the total population? It would appear useful, as, after all, if the place eventually becomes overrun with non-gays, it would all be in vain, no?
-
A quota system? Str8s invading the gay country? Well, why not? If we are opressed for being gay in some countries, then we need to do the same to the straight ones in our country? What the heck make us better then? Sometimes i really have the impression that Gays are the most intolerant people I know of. But I hope this is an Impression only. The fact needs to be discussed. Did I say fact? That shows pretty clear that this Impression is really there, that it appears as a fact to me. Proof me wrong. Please.
-
Well, Günter, one thing is clear: we want this country be a gay (and lesbian) country, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense, right? The point is, what mechanisms shall we apply then to achieve such a goal? Sure, oppression of the heteros is the easy way, but this would be then a country where we probably wouldn't feel comfortable as well... There are many other instruments to control structure of the population - without oppressing anyone.
-
gunna
I don't want to opresse anyone, I just feel that straight should not be allowed to be a member of the governent. this is all
Well, Günter, one thing is clear: we want this country be a gay (and lesbian) country, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense, right? The point is, what mechanisms shall we apply then to achieve such a goal? Sure, oppression of the heteros is the easy way, but this would be then a country where we probably wouldn't feel comfortable as well... There are many other instruments to control structure of the population - without oppressing anyone.
-
Don,
I can't agree with you on this point. This kind of politics is called Apartheid, and i will for sure not taking part in such. The white people have done that in South Africa to the black ones.
For sure it is better to have no str8s there, than making this kind of politics. But on the other hand - is it possible to make that come true? I really don't think so. It's a dream. Why?
Well, there will be children in this country (or kids ;) ) and for sure not all of them will turn gay. What to do with those having spent their whole lifetime in that gay country and now straight - bring them to the borders and kick them out if they have become adults? Don't they have a right to have a say in politic Issues also - as well as Gays would have?
WE are claiming equality. Now, we have to give equal rights also, or all our claim about Equality is use- and senseless. Because it turns out to be a lie then.
If we demand equal rights, we have to give equal rights also. What, if the USA would kick out all non-straight people, bringing them to the border(Deportation)?
It would lead to an outcry, with every right to. Do you really want to remove people from (or not allow to get) their posts because of their sexuality ???? I can't believe it.
Regards
Gunnar
-
Apartheid was not a noble or good thing, agreed. And also, the idea that droves of str8 people are going to overrun our little country when it finally exists seems a little overly dramatic. After further pondering the situation, wouldn't it be wiser to cross this bridge once we arrive at it? If there should for some odd reason be a mass influx of non-gays, we can take action at that time, no? So, my thinking is back to the "everybody is welcome with open arms" - just as you cannot choose who your brothers and sisters in a family are going to be, you should not be allowed to choose who your fellow countrymen should and should not be...
-
I have to disagree to the sentence cited below. Every country in the world executes certain restrictions on immigration, most regulations prefer healthy young professionals and wealthy businesmen. Australia even clearly prefers immigration of heterosexual people, giving additional points for the (heterosexual) spouse, gays and lesbians being filtered out by a very sofisticated point system. Therefore I do not see any unusual cruelty in the possibility of preferring gay/lesbian immigrants by the laws of the (at the moment theoretical) gay/lesbian state. Indeed, shall such a state preserve it's gay/lesbian nature, there will be practical need in establishing regulations for a preferably gay/lesbian migration.
Interestingly, by regulation of the immigration the society prevents any need for the "apartheid" of its citizens: once in the country, all citizens can be treated equally and have absolutely the same rights, as all of us expect a just government to proceed.
We should be much aware of the weird irony of the history: the former victims too easy tend to become oppressors in turn, if they get the chance to do so. The unfortunate policy of the actual Israeli government against palestinians and ethnic arabs demonstrates this danger as well as the silent oppression of whites by the black majority in the modern South Africa.
So, my thinking is back to the "everybody is welcome with open arms" - just as you cannot choose who your brothers and sisters in a family are going to be, you should not be allowed to choose who your fellow countrymen should and should not be...
-
If the people are to vote officials to office, then it shouldn't matter if they are gay or straight. We are so consumed with how homophobia has affected us that we are failing to see that we too are guilty of the same thing that the homophobes have committed; showing no regard for heterosexuals that are NOT homophobic. "What hurts one of us hurts us all" is the mentality that has led society to accept that which is different. Let us not take for granted or alienate our heterosexual champions and protectors who don't see our sexuality when they look at us. These folks that see love through compassionate eyes when they cast their gaze upon us deserve to be at our side; they deserve to be in-tow, they deserve to be pushed ahead, but they do not deserve to be left behind because they've served their purpose.
We are who we are and as long as we remain true to that which is important, which is that you can't judge a book by its cover, but only by its contents. I am the first person to condemn heterosexuals, believe me. When I hate them all, I HATE THEM ALL. That's based on centuries upon centuries of their bull$#!t. Once I've regained perspective, I am hopeful that they will be able to be viewed, realistically, as a whole... one day.
See what happens when animals reproduce out of control and safety measures aren't taken beforehand? A mess.
-
I just wonder if Mogul wants to repeat the mistakes made by today's (mostly) str8 governments. That's not needed: He (Mogul) has made pretty clear, that Australia is doing wrong. But to draw the conclusion, that a Government like the one we are dreaming of, has to repeat the mistakes made again and again, with no excuse but the childish "the others did also" seems to be a very strange idea. Just weird. Or - completly nuts.
EQUALITY DOES NOT WORK ONE WAY !!!
Sexual orientation is not a decision. And we should not make decisions because of such. We should, and here are my two cents on the Issue, decide on the reasons like if we can trust the people. And not if people have blue, green or brown eyes. This thread does not enlighten me, because we are talking exactly about that - eyecolors.
Think about it. Please.
Regards,
Gunnar
-
Dear and most respected Advocatus Diaboli (aka Gunnar), ;D
indeed I indicated that Australian government is doing wrongs to gay and lesbian people wishing to immigrate to Australia. I didn't dare a statement about whether Australia does itself a good service or not by proceeding this way. I even can understand, why Australia has this kind of immigration policy: they want to have educated, healthy and fertile heterosexuals to increase countrie's population and gross national product. It may sound cruel, but analphabetes, old, sick and "non-breeding" people seem not to fit into Australian profile of ideal immigrants. The same way heterosexual people (may them have a lot of different positive qualifications) probably do not exactly fit into the gay state's profile of ideal immigrants (guess why?!). The immigration policy makes no judgements about the "worth" of an individual as such - it only reflects the countrie's needs for some kind of immigrants - the same way as currently carpenters, dentists and marine biologists seem to be more valuable immigrants for Australia than chemists or philosophers. Out of the same reasons gay people would be more valueable immigrants for a gay state than straight people - without the latter ones being less valuable citizens.
It seems to me that my point of view, expressed in the earlier contributions, was not understood the way I meant it. ::) When we are considering the GLBT people as "folk" and are intended to create a nation, we are not talking about an ideal state with open borders for everybody. Yes, straights are not better and not worse than homos, but in the most countries straights let us feel different and do not respect your "eye-color" argument. In an ideal world, too, it would be not interesting of what nationality a person is, but in the real world it makes a difference: Russians and Turks cannot just go and settle in Germany or Canada if they wanted, Mexicans are not allowed to go and take a job in the US, and Australians cannot just go and buy an off-shore property in Brasilia. Israel readily accepts jewish people from all over the world, but refuses Arabes. Why does all this "injustice" exist? The answer is pretty simple: every country is just bothered with it's own problems and therefore cares only about its own prosperity and its own interest. The governments are working for the best of their own people and do not mind much the problems of other nations. Therefore I do not see anything unusually cruel or immoral in caring in first line for the best of our own people. Yes, there ARE many heterosexuals in poverty, in need of medicine and protection, but the same is true for our people, who are additionally subject of hate and violence just because they are gays or lesbians.
What is wrong in giving these people, who are less fortunate than their heterosexual follow creatures, additional priviledges for immigration into a country specially made for them? A GLBT-state would have a vital interest in remaining a GLBT-state, as otherwise the project makes no sense at all, right? Again, once in the country, everyone should be treated equally - including the right to elect and be elected to any office. On the other hand, I can understand the argumentation of people who have concerns about the "straight immigrants" elected into "sensitive" offices (defense, intelligence etc.) - there is a real danger of infiltration by foreign powers. But the same for sure might be true for catholics and a bunch of other "unhappy orientations" - so at the end a carefull investigation in every single case will be required anyway - being a catholic or straight as such is of course not a reason of keeping a person out of office and even not a character failure... Hm, in the case of a catholic homosexual I am not that sure... (OK, kick me if you like - this was my private and inofficial opinion as agnostic individual). ;D
Advocatus Dei ;D ;D ;D (aka Vicky the Mogul)
-
Heheh... funny. I'm inclined to agree with Vicky's View on readily embracing "folks" of the queer persuasion, but how long will that last before we start giving birth to heteros? We've got to take into account that there's a possibility that our nation could quite conceivably be over run with heterosexuals within three generations. Albeit, more accepting and open-mined heterosexuals, they'll be... without a doubt, but as we are still a minority, we should keep our eye on the ball; not who pitched it, who'll catch it, who's watching it... just exactly where to hit it to guide it where you want it to go - out of the park. Raise some kick@$$ kids and the LGBT Community's Nation will be a success, regardless of how many citizens comprise our sub-cultures.
*I'm a wee bit nervous for popping many balloons with this post a little early in the thread*
'Tis better to give it thought and accept it now, rather than later, right? *forced laugh*
-
Dear and most respected Advocatus Diaboli (aka Gunnar), ;D
Shouldn't that have been advocatus diabolus or advocati diaboli ??? :T
-
Heheh... funny. I'm inclined to agree with Vicky's View on readily embracing "folks" of the queer persuasion, but how long will that last before we start giving birth to heteros? We've got to take into account that there's a possibility that our nation could quite conceivably be over run with heterosexuals within three generations. ...
Strange how others here have had the same worry, Solo. I say: Take three steps back and look at the whole picture once again.
Why would people who are heterosexual (and therefore in some cases our sworn enemies) even want to "overrun" a nation created by and for homosexuals through non-warlike means? If we have anything to fear on the "overrun-o-meter," it will be the overt acts of aggression that will follow our founding by nations who see it as their "god- (or insert other deity of choice/preference here)-given duty" to destroy is as perverts, infidels, what have you.
I originally felt, like some others (and you?), that we should take a more overt, aggressive stance at control of hetero-immigration, but as the reality will likely mirror a very low rate of hetero-immigration, that problem should and must be addressed down the road. Addressing it up front, i.e., in our founding sentiments, it can and will do more harm than help, making us look exclusionary and much more like those whom we seek to escape rather than those we wish to become.
This raises an entirely different issue, however: Members must also consider that we will likely--once nationhood has been reached--need either to have an army (dressed in pink uniforms? ;U) or alliances with very strong, favorably-minded neighbors. Another option for protection will be the status of "protectorate," something the Brits and French used to accord to weaker nations before they began exporting their inhabitants as slaves...
-
Hi folks, I am one of those who have brought up the demographics issue in the past. As I am merely an occasional observor of this project, rather than a member, I generally refrain from posting any messages; however, on this issue I just wanted to restate that the majority status of homosexuals in any 'gay' nation would not be at risk from a flood of heterosexuals immigrating into the country, but rather from the growing presence of heterosexual children of its own gay and bisexual citizens.
Gay parenting may still be a relatively minor occurance, but it is one which is increasing each year; especially as gay couples are observing other gay couples who have children. This is a healthy, natural impulse. In any gay-friendly country, this process will be even more accelerated. It is not from without that gay majority status will be challenged, but from within.
As this point will be plainly obvious to many people, it serves little purpose to overlook it in your planning. This is why some people (I must admit, myself included) tend to conclude that a gay-majority nation would be impossible to maintain. I have suggested before that perhaps a better approach would be to pursue a nation which as part of its founding principles vows to treat all people equally, regardless of sexuality (or race, gender, ect.) This might be more productive than affixing a 'gay' label to the proposed state which would prove innacurate or embarassing to the nation two or three generations down the road - as well as unacceptible to an increasing percentage of that nation's own citizens.
Jeff
-
Jeff, even as an “occasional observer” I find your insight to be astonishing. I assure you that no restraint is necessary on your part simply because you are not a “member”. Your input is inherently valuable. Should you feel the inclination to comment, I for one will read it with great interest.
Your point is, as you have said, quite obvious and it would be the height of folly to ignore it as if it might go away or resolve itself in due course. Speaking only for myself, I have no intention of affixing a gay label to anything. If we were to filter the “gay” out of the Gay Republic we would be left with little more than a call to increased activism within the political structures of any number of already existing countries. A gay-majority nation would quite likely be impossible (certainly profoundly difficult) to maintain within the strictures of the currently existing political parties, but these strictures are arbitrary and quite unnecessary. Gay Nationalism need not presume that gays and straights are entirely equal in all things. It may well be possible for it to do so, but I’m not at all certain it would be helpful.
-
Thank you, Feral. I appreciate the words of welcome. Especially as the day after my latest post a separate thread which I originally been invited to start on this site was suddenly moved to the trash section. Made me wonder if perhaps my post was less welcome by others. LOL :-\
Anyway, I read your response with great interest. I'm not too sure what you meant in the last section of it though, the part where you write:
A gay-majority nation would quite likely be impossible (certainly profoundly difficult) to maintain within the strictures of the currently existing political parties, but these strictures are arbitrary and quite unnecessary. Gay Nationalism need not presume that gays and straights are entirely equal in all things. It may well be possible for it to do so, but I’m not at all certain it would be helpful.
If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you could elaborate on this a bit more. Thank you.
Jeff
-
Seriously, the Colonies/Communities thread was moved to an archive, not discarded. While the thread has not been discussed since late May, the ideas in it have very much been present in private conversations. I have every intention of revisiting the topic after I have managed to absorb it a little better. The problem is that it will take me some time. I think your book may contain some of the more important ideas to arise in gay politics since Michael Denneny’s “Sixteen Propositions”. They are the sort of ideas that recombine with pre-existing ideas and transform them, much like Mr. Anderson’s addition of sovereignty to the mix.
Some of my friends discount the supposed danger of children born into a gay homeland. They point out that the str8 people of the world still outnumber us by roughly sixteen to one, and they have a demonstrated track record for breeding. Just as gay parents will inevitably raise str8 children, str8 parents inevitably raise gay ones. It is entirely possible that gay immigration to a gay homeland would far outstrip the local birthrate.
I, however, do not discount the supposed danger. It would be foolhardy not to consider it. I am not an assimilationist; I have no desire to become anything like str8 people. Their customs, norms, traditions and institutions are for the most part irrelevant to me since these things have all been fashioned to serve the needs of str8 people, not all people. I am not an integrationist; I have no faith that straight people can be persuaded to behave in a just manner for any length of time. Institutionalized homophobia is a str8 phenomenon, not a gay one. Gays did not write the sodomy statutes. Gays did not make every word for a sexual process an expletive, nor did they make every word for ‘homosexual’ derogatory epithets. Str8 people did these things. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they will stop doing these things. Although there do appear to have been significant gains over the last years, there is no reason to believe that they are permanent. Theodore Herzl believed that the gains made by the Jews in the late nineteenth century could not be taken away. He was mistaken—from the Atlantic to the Pacific he was mistaken. It would be wise to learn from that error.
There are many solutions to the problem of homophobia, most of them singularly unpleasant. The most moral and equitable solution would be to simply separate from them. In so doing, I would not begrudge any gay person the company of his immediate family. I wouldn’t even begrudge them the option of expanding that family to include people that they have chosen out of affection rather than essentially meaningless genetic ties. But homophobia is inherent in str8 people’s language, a language they learn before puberty teaches them the natural meanings of these words; it is inherent in their thought processes which are founded upon these words; and it is therefore inherent in their culture. It has yet to be determined whether homophobia is inherent to the heterosexual nature, but at this point in history it is an indelible and core component of their identity. It hardly makes sense to solve this problem by carrying the source of the problem with you wherever you go. If you extend the privilege of immigration to every aunt and uncle, every cousin and grandparent (as has been suggested elsewhere), it becomes difficult to imagine how many people on the planet would NOT be eligible. Still, it is unreasonable to deny gay people the companionship of their chosen families. If you would allow str8 people, no matter how dear to you, into a gay society you may not allow them complete equality.
There is a difference between residence in a land and citizenship in a land. This difference can be very subtle and hardly noticeable in day to day life. In the US, for instance, there is no practical difference between about half of that country’s citizens and those persons who are merely residents. Universal suffrage is a fairly recent notion. I do not know of any nation that actually extends the privilege of voting to every person. Str8 suffrage may not inherently inimical to a gay society. It is sufficiently dangerous to warrant requiring that they earn the privilege. Electoral candidacy and land ownership are other questionable areas, though they are of considerably lesser importance.
-
Jeff, your contributions are highly welcomed! :Q
You are not the only one who was confused by the moving of your thread into the archive & trash section... This was for sure not a spitefull action but simply a "collateral damage" caused by a cleaning action of an administrator. 8(( As I also think that some topics are worth to be left where they were placed initially, I will ask the administrator to restore them on the right place.
Thank you, Feral. I appreciate the words of welcome. Especially as the day after my latest post a separate thread which I originally been invited to start on this site was suddenly moved to the trash section. Made me wonder if perhaps my post was less welcome by others. LOL :-\
[...]
Regards,
Vicky
-
[...] Theodore Herzl believed that the gains made by the Jews in the late nineteenth century could not be taken away. He was mistaken—from the Atlantic to the Pacific he was mistaken. It would be wise to learn from that error. [...]
For those who would like to have a quick access to Herzl's ideas:
"Der Judenstaat" ("The Jewish State") by Theodor Herzl:
http://www.thelikud.org/Archives/Jewish%20State%20by%20Herzl.htm (in English);
http://zionismus.info/judenstaat/judenstaat.htm (auf Deutsch).
I found it a very interesting lecture. Replace "Jewish" by "Gay" and we would have a perfect draft for our Manifesto! Personally, I am also very fond of the idea of a gay analogy to a "Kibbutz". :)
"Wenn ihr wollt, ist es kein Märchen!" (Theodor Herzl ) :=L
-
Especially as the day after my latest post a separate thread which I originally been invited to start on this site was suddenly moved to the trash section. Made me wonder if perhaps my post was less welcome by others. LOL :-\
Dear Jeff:
That was likely a mistake. I do occasionally move threads which have had no activity for 45 days or more to the archives, never the trash. The reason is to try to keep the opening window as clear and easily followed as possible. It would never be my intent or that of anyone else here to imply that anybody's opinions are unwelcome or do not matter or belong in the trash.
Welcome to our little cocoon. Soon we will burst forth like a butterfly from its chrysalis... and on that note, Mogul, rather than using Ganymede for our (too complicated new) logo, I think we might want to look into using a butterfly...
Again, welcome, Jeff
:W
-
...It is entirely possible that gay immigration to a gay homeland would far outstrip the local birthrate.
I am not an assimilationist; I have no desire to become anything like str8 people. Their customs, norms, traditions and institutions are for the most part irrelevant to me since these things have all been fashioned to serve the needs of str8 people, not all people. I am not an integrationist; I have no faith that straight people can be persuaded to behave in a just manner for any length of time. Institutionalized homophobia is a str8 phenomenon, not a gay one. Gays did not write the sodomy statutes. Gays did not make every word for a sexual process an expletive, nor did they make every word for ‘homosexual’ derogatory epithets. Str8 people did these things. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they will stop doing these things. Although there do appear to have been significant gains over the last years, there is no reason to believe that they are permanent...It would be wise to learn from that error.
... Still, it is unreasonable to deny gay people the companionship of their chosen families. If you would allow str8 people, no matter how dear to you, into a gay society you may not allow them complete equality.
There is a difference between residence in a land and citizenship in a land. This difference can be very subtle and hardly noticeable in day to day life...It is sufficiently dangerous to warrant requiring that they earn the privilege. Electoral candidacy and land ownership are other questionable areas, though they are of considerably lesser importance.
Pardon the extensive edits in your eloquent reply, Feral. You raise important points. I understand the minds of members who say they exclude us, let's exclude them, too, but must agree that this is a simple retribution mindset which will never succeed.
I accept the idea of colonialization as a way to possibly move towards what I regard as the ultimate goal - nationhood - but cannot accept it as the be-all, end-all solution to the problem the GLBT of the world face, as it is, to my mind, little more than ghetto-ization, which already exists in so many parts of the world, whether voluntarily imposed or by force. Major U.S. cities (and those in many other parts of the world) all already have gay ghettos, which are, for all intents and purposes, gay colonies. Thus, to my mind at least, the colonies concept is already a failure and likely will not ever achieve more than it already has. It will certainly never be able to achieve any sort of status of true equality for us. Gated communities are nothing more than walled ghettos, and saying that such "colonies" work is like saying the Warsaw Ghetto was a nice, cozy place to live.
The original idea underlying this entire organization is that some day we will not only want and desire our own nation, but need it. To some, that day is already at hand, as they are being actively pursued, persecuted, murdered, stifled, and chastised (not necessarily in that order) for being GLBT - being who they are. One of the underlying notions of our organization is that nationhood is desirable not so much for purposes of creating an "us vs. them" space, but in order to grant all those experiencing terror at the hands of straight people a place of refuge, a new homeland, where their safety is paramount, as well as giving those of us who merely feel uncomfortable in their own surroundings but face no real dangers a place to call home.
And while things have been improving for some of us in some places on this little rock we call Earth, lots have been steadily declining for many others. Even those of us living in some of those countries we thought were liberal, safe and finally coming to embrace and include us are seeing giant leaps backwards under their current oppressive "conservative" regimes. While optimists (I count myself as one, usually) believe that the next election cycle may cause the pendulum to swing back from right to center again, there is no guarantee of that happening. Conservatives and those who embrace the current U.S. regime, for example, consistently have belittled those of us who said the 2004 elections were already fixed, that Bush would be returned and that Diebold's nefarious machines would play a role, that this was the first step towards de facto dictatorship and abrogation of rights, etc., etc.
Well, we were right, sadly. And since we were, more words of caution. Colonialization to my mind is a mere stepping stone. The ultimate goal is, must and should be independent statehood. And that state must be welcoming of all. Excluding anyone except sworn enemies, homophobes and those who publicly state they wish to do us harm would be to lower ourselves to the same level as those we seek to escape. And while genetic markers may be unimportant to some, to others they remain vital, especially those of us who believe that blood ties eternally. It would never be acceptable to me to say to anyone Welcome to the Gay Republic, but your grandmother, cousin Edna and Uncle Zach cannot live here since they are str8. The only exception I could see there would be if Cousin Edna or Uncle Zach or even Grandma were sworn homophobes who had stated publicly on repeated occasions epithets indicating their desire to destroy us, our state, our way of life or to do us harm from the inside. And that would be a matter of a constitutional protective clause, and I don't think we are quite there yet...
In rereading the previous paragraph, I note the profound similarities between my own thoughts and Herzl's as well as the need for our future homeland to incorporate many of the ideas upon which modern-day Israel is based. We must be welcoming, yet cautious; open, yet guarded. We must never be too trusting, but also not appear overly suspicious. It will be a very fine balancing act to get everything just right. And ultimately, we will likely need to attune everything to Abraham Lincoln's notion that one can please part of the people all of the time, all of the people part of the time, but one can never please all of the people all of the time.
The way I see our future is the way we originally posted it on our gayhomeland.org website - first comes the Association. Second, we increase membership and spread the word world-wide. During that phase we solicit and accrue donations and gifts to broaden the cause and to set aside for eventual land acquisition. Once we have a formidable financial reserve, we discuss where we can realistically hope to buy a tract of land so significant that it represents enough ownership to possibly warrant future independence. (Part of that situation may also involve the purchase of an island; as noted elsewhere, islands which are off coastal areas have traditionally always fared better when it came to independence and securing secession...) Finally, through peaceful, diplomatically recognized and acknowledged means, we will eventually succeed in bringing about the ultimate goal for this organization - a true GLBT homeland for all. Will we need to arm ourselves? Fight wars? Hopefully not, but even that cannot be overlooked or excluded. Our ultimate goal is the peaceful establishment of our own homeland, but only an idiot or a lamb does not defend itself when threatened.
-
Hm, I also do not share Feral's radical views on the homophoby to be inherent to heterosexuals as such: Homophobia is rather peculiar to the societies with jewish-christian-islamic roots and not to all nations/religions. We should not make the mistake of extrapolating our experiences to the entire world. :) There are many straights eligible to be our true friends. Remember, straights not only have opressed us through the history, "they" also have discovered penicilline and have written much of the world literature and music, "they" also have invented the book-printing and the socialism. We share much of our culture with them; indeed most of our teachers and doctors were/are straights.
The noble goal of building a world-wide just society with equal rights for everybody is therefore still desireable and many GLBT organizations are doing excellent work in this area, with considerable progresses in some countries. Unfortunately, the socio-political developements on this planet are not only subject to good will and efforts of individuals (or group of individuals). Therefore it is not very likely that time will come for GLBT people to live in peace and harmony everywhere and for all times. For those born into a hostile environment, ther must be a chance to escape and live theire lifes in dignity. Our efforts are just another piece in the puzzle, but the piece which was missing so far.
[...] It would never be acceptable to me to say to anyone Welcome to the Gay Republic, but your grandmother, cousin Edna and Uncle Zach cannot live here since they are str8. The only exception I could see there would be if Cousin Edna or Uncle Zach or even Grandma were sworn homophobes who had stated publicly on repeated occasions epithets indicating their desire to destroy us, our state, our way of life or to do us harm from the inside.
In case we will have a GLBT country, I also would rather miss some of my relatives and straight friends... I also think that it would be rather an unjustice to deny a straight person some rights just because of the "wrong" sexual orientation...
But, on the ther hand, there is a clear discrepancy between our ideal wishes and the realities of this world. If we consider the mentioned 9:1 ratio it would be foolish to deny that the gay state widely-open for everybody would pretty quickly cease to exist - there is actually no doubt in this. Therefore I think we will require certain limitations for the migration of heterosexuals into the area, which, by the way, would be rather small even for us. I would suggest to restrict the immigration of relatives only to such individuals who are really dependant to the GLBT citizen, this would be e.g. minor children or the old grandmother in need of assistance. This would avoid unnecessary cruelties on the one hand and protect our future as a gay state on the other hand. We just have to understand that all-inclusiveness and an actual gay souvereignity are 2 contrary interests and there will never be a solution sufficiently covering both. But we can find some practicable solutions to prevent at least said cruelties to our people and their close relatives.
[...] There is a difference between residence in a land and citizenship in a land. [...]
This is the point: some of the straights can live there without becoming citizens and still have a comfortable life. Also their children will not automatically become citizens - a bit less comfortable, but absolutely usual in other countries for foreign nationals. The permanent residency as a legal status would also enable gays with a wish to keep their original citizenship to live in our future country without loosing their original citizenship.
The colonies can be a part of the concept even in a progressed stage - why not? This world is very diverse, there are different needs and therefore different solutions are possible.
:L
-
Ah, yes. Open to all is a noble concept, indeed, isn't it. When I say "open to all," I do not necessarily mean "accepting of all." Through means of immigration control, quotas as it were, as we have in the U.S. and other countries, a limit to non-gay influx would be created. This, coupled with the vetting of all applications for residency to preclude homophobes and other such ilk from gaining legal admittance, would surely keep the "str8 population explosion" from occurring and under control.
I just feel very strongly that this is a regulatory process rather than one that should be enshrined in any basic concept of statehood. If we are discriminatory in our basic outlook, we fail the test of being inclusionary and allowing those who do us wrong to see that we do it right, thus lowering ourselves to their level...
Colonies are a useful stepping stone, as I said. I just don't think a colony, akin in my opinion to a ghetto, is a true homeland...
-
I accept the idea of colonialization as a way to possibly move towards what I regard as the ultimate goal - nationhood - but cannot accept it as the be-all, end-all solution to the problem the GLBT of the world face, as it is, to my mind, little more than ghetto-ization, which already exists in so many parts of the world, whether voluntarily imposed or by force. Major U.S. cities (and those in many other parts of the world) all already have gay ghettos, which are, for all intents and purposes, gay colonies. Thus, to my mind at least, the colonies concept is already a failure and likely will not ever achieve more than it already has. It will certainly never be able to achieve any sort of status of true equality for us. Gated communities are nothing more than walled ghettos, and saying that such "colonies" work is like saying the Warsaw Ghetto was a nice, cozy place to live.
Hey guys, just a couple things:
First off, I personally no longer like to use the term colony, as it seems to provoke in people a pre-set definition which becomes almost impossible to then get around. When I use the word colony, I more accurately mean a community: a village or hamlet to start with, and in time, one that hopefully might grow into a town or even a city - also (and very importantly) one that is fully integrated and interactive with surrounding communities.
That said, the colony idea (as expressed in my book "Colonies & Super-Familes," and in the thread in this Forum) is not a failed idea. It is an idea which has not, to my knowledge, yet been attempted. Now it may fail if it were tried, but to say it has failed as this point is inaccurate. I don't want to rehash all the details of the idea since it can all be reviewed in the thread, for those who are interested. I just want to restate the main point that when I used the term 'colony' I was referring to a full-fledged, un-gated community (one which contained not only housing, but businesses, cultural and recreational venues, public parks, schools, police and fire departments, local legislature, ect.) Anything, and everything, that a typical town might want or need. This is far beyond the scope of a gated community - which are usually little more than housing developments. It is also far beyond the scope of an urban gay neighborhood (or ghetto, as so many of us insist on referring to them) which is typically just a handful of blocks within some large cities.
Also, it needs to be kept in mind what the purpose of these communities would be. If the purpose is total political independence, than of course they cannot achieve that. I have never claimed they would. Their goal, instead, is to increase gay social and cultural development: and thereby not only improve our daily lives significantly on a personal level, but also on a public level, by transforming the overall political landscape within that nation, making those who hold anti-gay viewpoints increasingly unelectable. Since this is a strategy which can be undertaken in all but the most restrictive of nations, the potential is enormous.
While I certainly concede that this idea is not the be-all, end-all solution to our problem, it is also clear that neither is political independence. For the simple reason that the vast majority of gay people will always live outside any gay nation that is created. So much so that a gay state may be viewed, by some, as a 'ghetto' amongst nations. It is this vast majority, in particular, that my idea is meant to help.
By being ungated, and therefore open to any who'd like to live there, work there or visit there, these communities would serve as invaluable showcases for gay people to explore and display who we are as a people. The creation of an independent nation, while having it's own virtues and vices, is not necessary for this gay development to occur. But it is, ultimately, this gay development that everyone in this forum is trying to achieve, for presumably it is to create an atmosphere for this kind of development that you are seeking to start a new nation.
I guess I'm one of those who believe that simpler is almost always better. What is the simplest way to bring about a solution? In this case: what is the simplest way to achieve widespread gay development? In fact, it's the pursuit of this 'simple is better' credo that has me currently looking into ways of stripping down my idea even further, to get as close to that core of 'gay development' as I can, by focusing only on what's absolutely necessary, and thereby making it more practical and doable. Unfortunately, the new version would probably be even less appealing to this group than the first version. :)
But such is life. By the way, congratulations on finalizing your Association Statutes. I can imagine how difficult such a process must be.
Jeff
-
I should point out that I did not advocate a policy of excluding heterosexuals. On the contrary, I said that to do so would be unreasonable. What I DID advocate was not automatically granting them the privilege to vote.
As for whether str8 people are, by nature, inherently homophobic—it seems to be that it is more likely than not that this is the case. I am open to the possibility that it is not. There are always these persistent rumors of good str8 people, str8 people that are capable of living in peace and equality with gay people. I actually believe these rumors. I have personal knowledge of three of them. Three out of a population of six billions is not so much, but it is a fact that I do not get out much. I would not hesitate to suppose that these three persons might represent as many as three thousand. But if you wish to claim that these mysterious beings are more numerous than that, you shall have to point them out to me because I have seen precious little evidence of their existence.
If, from time to time, I appear to be lowering myself to ‘their’ level, it is because I do not presume to be on some other, higher level to begin with. I do not claim to be ‘better’ than str8 people in any regard. On the contrary, in many ways I find the gay people and the str8 people to be quite equal in to each other. They are not, however, the same. There are those who believe (quite sincerely) that the only difference between gay people and str8 people is what they do in bed. It is my belief that what they do in bed is the only thing they really have in common.
-
I should point out that I did not advocate a policy of excluding heterosexuals. On the contrary, I said that to do so would be unreasonable. What I DID advocate was not automatically granting them the privilege to vote. [...]
@ Ron: Sure. :L I think no one of us desires to mistreat a singular straight person and cut his/her personal rights just for being straight. We should think in statistical dimensions - e.g. making the naturalization of straight people depending on certain conditions, but not excluding such a possibility ab initio. Generally, an automatical granting of citizenship even to gay individuals is not a practicable thing. How shall we "prove" the sexual orientation of a person who declares himself being a gay? Before some of you gifted with an excess of phantasy come to some weird trial procedures, =)) I would suggest to grant the applicants the permanent residency first and look then how they perform in the next couple of years. A participation in social or infrastructure-building programs could be made a condition for young people. It is probably better to wait with naturalization a while than to deprive somebody of citizenship later in case he/she turns out to be "not eligible".
Generally, we will probably not be able to escape the need to be somewhat unjust against heterosexuals. I only would suggest to restrict their rights as little as possiblle and only to an extent as really seems necessary to preserve the existence of the "gay state" in his nature. As Ron suggests, the privilege to vote might be denied indeed. One possible way would be simply to deny naturalization to the "declared" straights in general, but not discriminating against straights to who the citizenship was already granted out of some reasons.
I think, it is more gentle not to "deny rights" to specified groups, but rather to "grant rights" to other specified groups, giving a good reason for doing so. Though the practical consequences might be the same, there is a fine difference between these two approaches. The first indicates that one specified group of people is less worth than others in general - this is not our intention. By following the second approach, we simply specify the GLBT people as a persecuted group of individuals who are in need of special protection and therefore are granted more privilegies than others. You will surelly agree that a motion to favour gay people cannot be as easily condemned as a motion to discriminate against straight people. :)
[…] While I certainly concede that this idea is not the be-all, end-all solution to our problem, it is also clear that neither is political independence. For the simple reason that the vast majority of gay people will always live outside any gay nation that is created. […] But it is, ultimately, this gay development that everyone in this forum is trying to achieve, for presumably it is to create an atmosphere for this kind of development that you are seeking to start a new nation.
[…] Unfortunately, the new version would probably be even less appealing to this group than the first version. :)
@ Jeff: Your "community" concept is a very interesting one. Though it might seem that our group is "against" this concept by times, this is clearly not the case. It is solely our focus on the idea of gainig the real political indipendence that lets us critic the "colonies concept" as not going far enough and the like. In my understanding, the said "communities" surely are worth on their own and should be supported at any means, also in the case the gay state will be created and prosper. We indeed aim establishing of gay colonies as a stepstone on the way to the gay state, but this does not say that similar efforts are lacking the right of existence. On contrary, they can be a valuable part of the gay culture and offer place for many gay individuals. Why not - we anyway will not be able to accommodate all the hundreds of millions of gay people from the entire planet.
Our intention is both to take a positive influence to the gay cultural developement where it is possible, and to provide actual physical refuge to those who are in danger in their countries of origin. That's why I think a tiny rock inmidst of Pacific with solely a symbolic qualities would probably not suffice.
:R
I again have to draw the general attention to the fact, that regional conditions vary from country to country to a high degree. While establishing an ungated, open community is suitable for Canada and the US, it would be a suicidal activity in Colombia or even Poland. While in Russia we could easily establish gay agricultural colonies, such an endeveaur in densely populated Germany would fail because of financial reasons. Therefore the entire discussion about "Ghettoes" seems to me as unnecessary as a goitre - different local realities change the point of view at times severely! What is a "Ghetto" to one person, is a "secure environment" to the other.
:=SU
Vicky
-
Vicky!
I don't think you are going to find anyplace on this planet then! If you just consider the numbers alone. I think a good estimate of Gay and Lesbians on this Earth is 500 million. I believe that is conservative. If you take another very conservative number, 1% of those need sanctuary from actions as diverse as plain harrassment to execution, you'd have to accomodate 5 million! So I see any state as more of a "vaticanesque" mouthpiece for our people. I think given some of the peculiarities of the American justice system, citizenship in the GLCK could be used to an advantage here.
Perhaps in time, with a robust economy, and a national will, we might make more land like the Palm Islands of Dubai, or enclose areas of the Palmer Penisula under glass, or even (I'll not live to see it probably) colonize the moon!
But it greatly hinges on nation consciousness building, a coalesance of a national identity for Gays and Lesbians the world over. That is why the Commonwealth prefers to do things the way it is doing them. (Duarchs and some pomp and circumstance)
Your way, with a board and incorporation, by laws and such, makes excellent sense, if you were starting a new car company. But it doesn't fire hope and imagination and loyalty. Don't get me wrong. I respect the GLR, and a Gay Nation will need you, to actually make it run, nuts and bolts, economy and business. I wouldn't think of going to Clipperton without the GLR!
Jaix
Jaix, I am wholly aware of the difference of the approach - that's why we are trying to make it in our way. Certainly, it's less fascinating to be an executive secretary in an association than to be, let's say the imperial scientific advisor or alike. And yes, many gay and lesbian people would enjoy the idea to have a beatifull gay passport and have some respected personality as their "Emperor". Its's fully understood. The central question, which urged me to follow the other way was: What do the gay people have from the whole enterprise? And my personal answer was that the really oppressed gay people (somewhere in Iran, Nigeria, Guinea or Albania) will have nothing from this. What's the use of a virtual nation, if the "government" isn't able to help a single one of it's "citizens"?
First of all there must be clear what we (in our diversity) have in mind when we are talking about the "gay nation". There is already an organization representing the gay and lesbian people in the world's politics - it's International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). They are present on local and global stage and can be regarded rightfully as the current "gay government". They raise money, have good networks and are doing very good job in public relations and help the local GLBT civil rights groups effectively. Why on earth do we strive to establish another "gay government" then?
The answer is, that ILGA works on improving the situation in general (with good success), but can't do much in the most GLBT-hostile countries. ILGA also can not grant asylum for those in live danger and cannot arrest politicians responsible for killing our people and bring them before court of justice. ILGA also could do less against some developements concerning entire nations (US to be the next religious state?).
Therefore I believe that there is a need for a real state with real territory for our people. It's great that most gay people in the US and Europe feel pretty comfortable where they are, but there are many who would take the opportunity and escape theire countries to flee to an existing gay state or a protected "colony". For those we pursue this project, with an additional positive effect to the entire GLBT-community expected.
We already have observed that gay people tend to escape their rurar environment (mostly hostile towards them), and gather in the larger cities where they find partners, friends and a comfortable GLBT-community in general. Though there is no complete separation from heterosexuals, most of our friend are gays or lesbians, we prefere to buy our things in gay shops (if possible) and we feel more comfortable with a gay doctor and a gay hair-dresser, right? Not that we actually act this way out of political radicalism, but upon gathering negative experiences, being permanently rejected and not taken seriously, we just seek unconsciously for an agreeable environment. If we now think about the possibility to be entirely in a comfortable environment, it would be logical to make the step forwards and insist on our right for complete political self-determination. We also must be aware of the possibility that in some countries the neo-cons can succeed with turning the time back - they can begin with seizing gays and putting us into camps to protect their society. So isn't it better to create a camp on our own timely and make sure that we rule there? If I'm wrong with my pessimism, it would be better for the world; but history tends to go forwards in time-helixes, and more that only once minorities were extingueshed by their previously so friendly neighbours.
We need a refuge for our people.
-
Vicky,
Apparently I've hurt your feelings or inadvertently maligned the GLR. It was not my intention to do so. I'm not familiar with the IGBLT? or their policies or their members. I may have seen some news by line about them, but neutral gray faceless doesn't tend to stick out in my memory, sorry.
I'm taking up too much of my time and yours posting here, so I'll tend to my own nest.
Good bye,
Jaix
-
Jaix,
it's rather hard to hurt my feelings, why do you think you have done so? I just wanted to explain my point of view clearly.
(http://de.geocities.com/viktorzimmermann/images/ILGA-Logo.jpg)
ILGA is an international association of GLBT-groups and individuals from all over the world and it coordinates much of the GLBT politics from US to Russia and Nepal. For example, ILGA was very active in pursuing the Brazil-supported resolution for gay rights on the United Nations. You can find some further informations here:
http://www.ilga.org/
The question is still, why do we think that gay people should be governed at all? (-> Feral's initial post)
:=SU
-
Vicky, Vicky, Vicky,
You must have a hide as tough as a crocodile! When you pass from this life, will me some skin. I need a new pair of boots. >:)
Why do Gays and Lesbians need to be governed? Does Feral mean as opposed to being just put on a territory and each doing what he/she will? Just off the top of my head, I'd say that anarchy wouldn't work for us any more than any other group of human beings. Suppose someone wanted to wear white after Labor Day or Black after Easter? Chaos!
Leisure suits, poly-ester and wool, and three types of plaid, oh my!
So I'd say, yes we need to be governed. But by ourselves, self government, not ruled by groups that couldn't give a used comdom if we became extinct. Think about it. We are the last colony. The largest group in the world to be totally ruled by people outside of our innate group.
I frankly think that when we do come together and raise our voices, some national governments may resort to violence above and beyond what they now do. Maybe just more insidious.
Can you imagine the alarm if Atlantis rose from the depths and about 500 million GLBTs scurried to occupy it with all their assets, wherewithall and intelligence (not to mention good taste)? A GREAT power if not a super power.
Note to self.....see if I can round up some of our wonderful Amazons for bodyguards. :=SU
Vive LesGays!
Sincerely (tongue in cheek, and maybe not)
Jaix
-
Jaix - due to some peculiarities of my profession my body will be sent to a hazardous waste disposal facility - I am afraid, you will have to run barefoot through the world's history. =))
Well, the question of "governing the gay people" is closely related to the the definition of the purposes of a government. The purpose of the government is not to oppress the people but to regulate some matters which can not be properly addressed by private initiative. It may include, for example:
1) Representation of the gay people on the international area;
2) Administration of a network of gay organizations and citizens;
3) Funding cultural and sportive activities;
4) Supporting gays and lesbians in urgent need of accomodation, medical or legal support;
5) Securing the gay and lesbian cultural heritage;
6) Physical protection of gays and lesbians;
All these tasks require large sums of money, regulations for collecting this money and mechanisms for controlling the spendings. Not to forget the state apparatus to secure that things run properly. Do we have solutions to offer for these tasks? The current situation is that all the work is already being done by many grassroots organizations and a few international alliances, but no really strong organization exists. There are now 2 ways for forming a state-like entity:
1) Proclaim the government and look for citizens who like this government; or:
2) Form a community from existing movements, groups and organizations and struggle for a democratic representation and establishing some regulative work to bring many different and/or contradicting interest to a peacefull co-existence.
It is quite obvious, that the first way is the most easy to go - it is also not laking legitimacy, as long as the government in question is regulating solely the matters of its registered citizens and does not pretend to act for the entire gay community. However, the impact on the entire gay population probably would be rather low.
The second way is a much more slow and difficult, but it involves already existing structures and is more appropriate to create a global gay community, collecting and re-destributing ressources.
If we could find a possibility to bring the two different approaches together, e.g. if gay activists would recognize the necessity to form a central government out of their middle? Gay nationalists could offer a good example for such a notion, but unfortunately we are not able to do so at the moment.
-
Of course aiming for such a large project would result in problems, however technically speaking, starting off with something smaller, say hexagonal platforms of about 1000' feet radius, all made to where they can be joined and added too over time. I actually have been giving come serious consideration to the technical side of such a design. I have been researching options in the form of mariculture, I've aimed for realistic, off the shelf hardware for application, leaving the development and research of future potential technologies to the future.
The hexagon is a stable "plate" to float. Not only that it allows for infinite connections of other hexagons with more stability and strength than squares and rectangles. Further its very design incorporates the equilateral triangle which is strong in itself. The equilateral triangle was hailed by R. Buckminster Fuller as the "only self-stabilizing polygon. 6 equilateral triangles meeting at one point form a hexagon a six sided polygon.
With existing technologies and existing practices in design and engineering there are ways to create a "floating nation". The Dutch are the most innovative presently, but then they are in direct threat of flooding if the seas rise much further. The Dutch should be the ones we turn to in considering "land options" they are keenly aware how limited land is and how land is going to become even more scarce as this century unfolds.
As for time, there is very little of that for us. We must remember that history is moving, there are a lot of forces at work work which are already taking some nasty turns in the societies we live in.
Pick up a newspaper and read it, you will find that politics are causing fundamental changes, ones that will lead to less "rights" even in the "free" nations of the world. Economically the world dances on the edge of a razor blade. We already know that there are groups of individuals who really, really want to make bigger problems by detonating of nuclear type weapons in a big city - that will incite governments to "lock down" their peoples - all for the protection of the people. The USA plans to build a fence at its southern boarder and to protect its boarders from immigrants. Berlin should have taught us that a wall prevents passage both ways.
Peak oil has been reached, from here on out the demand for oil will far outstrip the ability to pump oil. Thus direct and indirect effects will be felt in economies and politics. I do not know how gas prices are in Europe, here in the Americas Gasoline prices are creeping steadily upward, with each passing year new record highs are reached. This year the $4.00 US mark will be reached. 5 years ago we whined and sniveled when $3.00 Us was reached, and to tell the truth many of us lower working class were financially hit hard. Many are already on the verge of bankruptcy and businesses that rely on cheap fuel are in a pinch - especially small businesses.
To top it all off there is Global Warming and Climate change where it is predicted in the next ten years Europe will suffer from more heat waves, Water shortages will crop up around the world, Crop lands are already drying out, soon to become dust bowls. Floods, famine, and pestilences will increase. America herself is not immune, many placed are burning when it used to be the wet season, Storms are worse, more tornadoes and record breaking storm seasons are being reached per year. Arable land is already lost due to water shortages, just a hop and a skip north of me Klamath Calfornia is already dried up and starting to blow away. The farm economy no longer exists and farm families that had been there for generations are now bankrupt and forced to move away.
By 2050 coastal cities will be like Venice, flooding on a regular basis as high tide pulls in higher sea levels onto once dry lands.
Can you imagine the impact that these things will have on the population at large, which presently stands at 6,446,131,400 people today. Will reach 6,605,046,992 by 1 July of this year - By 2050, it is estimated that the global population will reach 9 billion.
We can't even feed and provide minimal health care for about a billion people already. In a world where weather and climate is eating up arable crop land and the population is still growing are we to expect that societies will have the luxury to exercise civil rights and equalities for all? Western nations have yet to be seriously impacted by a shortage of food, but it is right on the horizon.
Western "Free" nations have the luxury of affording us the few rights we have. It is a luxury bought from the abundance of wealth in those societies where food and survival is not a high priority. I assure you that when push comes to shove those luxuries will be the first to be dropped. rights and Freedoms are being taken away for our "protection" - I assure you when things begin to crack martial law will be the law of the Lands - for the protection of the people, of course.
That will bring civilian strife, and no body will care if a few or many gays are strung up along the fences of dying crops. Their attention and resources will be applied 100% at containing the population at large and answering the On-going, constant emergency that will be the normal state of affairs for most of the world.
It is estimated that the movement of people (Global Warming Refugees) will be an exodus of untenable proportions. It has started already, in the arctic as the first refugees are being evacuated from their homes from the raising waters of the sea: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1043362002 Pacific islands are next and within the next decade those low islands will have to be evacuated: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10407508 Some of those inhabited islands are already flooded at high tide and by rights the people should be moved today.
When space agencies launch a craft to say Mars they speak of "windows" - the "launch window" is affected by several factors, where the target is and where that target will be months or years down the time line, where Earth is and can be affected by the orbits of other bodies man made and other wise, affected by earth bound storms and affected by human error.
We enjoy at the present time a seemingly wide open horizon where our "launch window" on first glance appears to be endless. This is not so, profound changes are taking place that will close that window rather soonish. Things are politically "quiet" economically "quiet" today. This will not be the case tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Unfortunately there is no way to predict when the next window will open, if ever. We should assume that once this window closes that is the end of any chance at GLBT nation.
We can either sit here and chat about our prospects for the next few decades, or we can listen to the warnings and use those to our advantage.
We are going to have to be canny and cruel, we are going to have to resort to treachery and deceit. We are going to have to use those forces to our advantage or do nothing at all.
The GLBT Nation will not be accepted before its creation. To think that is folly. Seriously consider a GLBT community in any city. They just "happened" no one said, "Lets take X district and make it gay" To even say something like that would be met with the same intense opposition from both sides (Straight and GLBT) as proposing a GLBT nation is met today.
But once a GLBT community is formed it becomes a Gay Mecca where thousands flock drawn by the promise of "open" living.
The formation of a gay state should take place by "accident" not on purpose. At least that is how it should be engineered to appear to happen. It should appear to be created out of "rational" unrelated pressures and needs. It should appear, on the surface, to be as hetero as any other venture to date.
It will not be accepted as "possible" today, tomorrow or even a generation from now no matter how much we try to teach our GLBT brothers and sisters. They are programed otherwise. However once there is a foothold they will gravitate to it and accept it and defend it with all of their heart and soul.
Sell them on a seemingly unrelated business opportunity and you will have your funds.
--->Exploit the greed to meet the need.
-
The "corporation" would be a false front to the real business behind the store. Sort of like organized Crime business where they present a "legal" acceptable business to the peering eyes of the public, while behind that there is other business, other plans taking place. in the basics. [..] Even in a place where it is illegal to bear arms, there is a wide and diverse black market where everything and anything can be purchased for a price. Granted one needs to be somewhat inventive in hiding these "toys".
Scheming and plotting in an openly accessible forum isn't the best way to keep things secret. ;D Whereas I agree that not everything must be known by everybody, I would suggest we stay within the frame of legality when acting on a territory of a host country. Otherwise the enterprise can be rounded up more quickly than one can think. Besides, there is little reason to present a false front in democratic countries which are not hostile to us -- it's not like we were aiming some evil things. However, in Nigeria or Iran there will be no other choice than act secretly, but they are at war with the Gay people anyway, thus it does not matter.
Again this would be a temporary state of affairs, once the man power, the technology, the fire power and all of that is in place then we all join hands and scream "We're Queer, We're Here!".
In essence this idea is good, but not in the way of snickering onto someone else's territory and violently separating a strip of land. Attempting such a thing would most certainly result in unnecessary bloodshed. What can work well is the Gay State posessing enterprises around the world and using their infrastructure and vehicles/vessels for governmental needs. If we are not permitted to evacuate our people from a particular country, we could pick up them as tourists on a cruise ship via a covered tourist agency, that's true. Many things can be done without proclaiming the "official" souvereignty, even totally legal. Setting up a larger navy would be among those things easily done without much legal fuss.
The problems I have with "secret societies" is partially attributed to their invisibility. How should such an organization recruit its membership? I know Burroughs has suggested something very similiar (Gay equivalent of Tong societies), but the prospects of becoming member of a semi-criminal structure will appear not very appealing to the most western Gays. I would suggest that we stick on the idea of a souvereign entity, whose citizens/officers operate legal businesses while staying on territory of friendly states.
I would wager that a Gay nation would, as part and parcel of its policies, endeavor to teach through demonstration what compassion is.
Yep, Buddhism would be an ideal State religion. But even considering the folks who will insist on staying Christians/Moslems/Wiccans/atheists/whatever, the principles of compassion and respect for living creatures should be implemented right from beginning. I would greately appreciate if this compassion were demonstrated not only towards humans, but also towards animals. It will be probably not feasible to persuade the immigrants to totally abstain from killing and eating animals, but we must ensure that such killings are done in the most painless manner. For example, the barbary of cutting throat of a fully conscious animal must not be permitted. Furthermore, the barbary of a capital punishment and torture shall be forbidden by the constitution: No matter what the evildoer has commited, for our own sake there shall be no outrages commited against him/her.
Sell them on a seemingly unrelated business opportunity and you will have your funds.
Any ideas on this? Feral was suggesting foam parties with Go-Go boys, the most reasonable suggestion so far... :)
We are going to have to be canny and cruel, we are going to have to resort to treachery and deceit.
We will certainly have no need in betraying an ally, it is more probable to happen the other way. Indeed, such things happen very often -- as soon as any liberal government in Europe is replaced by a “Christian Democratic” one, we hear the news of deportation plans on Gay refugees. My prediction is that the most of the powerfull “civillized” governments will lough into our faces without even contemplating our territorial needs. We shall pay them in the same way... The reason of the state shall be our moral compass, indeed.
Seriously consider a GLBT community in any city. They just "happened" no one said, "Lets take X district and make it gay"
Well, such things can be planned - let’s say, a bunch of wealthy businessmen decides to start their businesses in a particular area, in a coordinated manner. They set up their complimentary businesses, lend the appartments solely to Gay people, and buy the area step by step from the previous posessors. The businesses, even if deficitary, would attract a rising influx of Gay men desiring to live in the area. I have little doubt that if Elton John and Lord Brown decided to put some cash together and purchase a middle-sized island somewhere in Pacific and declare it a Gay Paradise, Gay folks would immigrate en masse. Lord Brown is told to have been earning around half a billion pounds in a year, if I remember well. This man could initiate his private Empire, if he wanted -- insted, he chooses to be blackmailed by a prostitute. Quo Vadis, Gay people???
-
Quo Vadis, Gay people?
I would like to imagine that they are going home. Alas, I like to imagine a lot of things which simply aren't the case. Still, this is what they should do. It is at once both more simple and more complicated than can be guessed at.
"Home is where the heart is" and I am afraid that the Gay people have, in large measure, little connection to their own hearts. They are far too busy whining and pining for the hearts of others to pay any attention to their own. Never mind the inevitable outrage that these hearts are not open to us. There is no solution in trying to batter our way into acceptance. What value would such a coerced acceptance have? What comfort is there really in bare tolerance?
We should go home. "Where" that might be is nowhere near as vital as "what" that is. The 'where' is just a place (and there are lots of places, and a dozen schemes for acquiring each one). Naturally the sovereign place is the ultimate goal, but I think there is a great deal to be done prior to reaching that goal (or even setting out).
"Urnland" (for lack of a better word) will eventually (and I think inevitably) crystallize out of a "Greater Urnland." This over-arching Gay culture will surely contain corporations and secret societies and religious orders. I hope it eventually contains thousands of them. It would, of course, be helpful if these entities had an interest in the Gay state, or at least the steps along the path to the Gay state. Certainly all Gays will not be interested in such a place, or even interested in supporting it in its accomplished form. Still, much of what is good and necessary for the creation of the Gay state is good and necessary for the Gay people wherever they might live.
Of course, I can also imagine some fabulously wealthy person suddenly coming into possession of what can only be named "Urnland." Perhaps I am too misanthropic, but I do not think that it would be so very successful. Yes, some... even many... would choose to emigrate to it at once. One can imagine that they will rise to the many challenges of such an endeavor and quite possibly succeed. However, I cannot help but notice that nearly all of these challenges exist in only slightly altered form everywhere else in the world and that the Gay people have not been "arising" much. If the Gay people can (and I suspect that they really can) "learn on the job" in some Gay state that springs from the head of Zeus like Athena, then they can also learn on the job where they are now. They do not because they are deceived into not wanting to. They think they want something else entirely. They need to be persuaded otherwise.
-
"Urnland" (for lack of a better word) will eventually (and I think inevitably) crystallize out of a "Greater Urnland."
How about New New York with New New York City... ;)
Any ideas on this? Feral was suggesting foam parties with Go-Go boys, the most reasonable suggestion so far... Smiley
yes I have a few ideas. Discussed elsewhere.
Yep, Buddhism would be an ideal State religion.
State Religion is a bad idea. The State should be Humanitarian but not religious. Religion should be a personal matter decided by the individual for self.
Further In New New York Nation and New New York City Churches will be taxed too.
We will certainly have no need in betraying an ally
Ally? Do the GLBT have an ally?
The problems I have with "secret societies" is partially attributed to their invisibility. How should such an organization recruit its membership?
Its not a secret society. We are talking about a business, a corporation - a company - and like all companies do it will have its corporate secrets. Corporations do very, very well with "recruitment" of workers, CEO's, etc.
-
"Home is where the heart is" and I am afraid that the Gay people have, in large measure, little connection to their own hearts. [..] If the Gay people can (and I suspect that they really can) "learn on the job" in some Gay state that springs from the head of Zeus like Athena, then they can also learn on the job where they are now. They do not because they are deceived into not wanting to. They think they want something else entirely. They need to be persuaded otherwise.
You might remember we have once discussed the issue of Gay Nationalism somewhere else, and I thought it necessary to stress the distinction between the "People", the "Nation" and the "State". Gays as a people is, and has always been there -- in oppressed form, acknowledged, but yet there. Our traces can be found throughout human history for millenia, no matter what the social constuctionists might wish us to believe. A people is described by an entire set of cultural habits and practices, which may vary with time, but one shall be aware that abandoned cultural practices do not die out -- they become history and part of this particular people's myths. Thus, the Gay people is of course subject of cultural change and evolution, but it is still the same people -- no matter of what skin color and geographical location. We are a people, even if a people sui generis -- a factum, which not everybody easily recognizes at once. The State, on contrary, is the least difficult to explain - any group of people in posession of sufficient power can establish a State, which is nothing else as an advanced network of individuals and institutions. The Nation is a conception which is not easily defined - basically, it is a "thought community" of individuals who consciously identify themeselves as members of this community, and act to the benefit of this community in their big and small actiones. A national interest is recognized, and issues of such national interest are considered by elites and "simple people" with equal attention. Hereby it matters little whether the fellow national is located next doar, in a foreign country, or on a ship somewhere in terra incognita -- "the Nation" takes a profound interest in his/her activities and well-being, despite all the physical distances. "The Nation" is thus a state of mind, in first line.
Currently, the Gay people are only in beginning of building nation - a spontaneous process, which can be either reinforced or disturbed by deliberate efforts of knowing individuals, insofar they have the means and grips to do so. The nation-building actually doesn't require a State behind it, since the elites and the people are very well able to conglomerate into something distantly resembling a nation on their own, solely relying on those gravitation forcel of shared culture. That's currently our weakness - this cultural gravitation pull is not yet strong enough in most Gay individuals. This has to be contributed partially to our homophobic upbringing, partially to our spacial dispersal. Like in the physical world, cultural gravitation forces seem to reciprocally depend on the distance between the bodies. The closer we come to each other, the more we get appealed by our own people. Remember what you felt when you did not know any Gay individuals in persona? There was probably not much attraction, but rather a repulsion force at work -- thanks to the stories straight people tell us about our race. The more Gay people we know and the more we actually interact with them, the more are we attracted by other Gay people. Thus, interconnection is the key requirement for building a nation. It is no coincidence, that the rise of modern nations came in the 19th century contemporaneously with the rise of mass press. The newspaper connected the eites with the middle-class, and created the common public space which is so charactiristic for all nations. We Gays, too have this public space novadays, but unfortunately it is available only to those who have access to internet, and speak any of the common business languages. Like peasants in a distant mountain village of 1850, most of our people are still cut off the nation. Additionally, many put themselves in a self-chosen isolation, or they fall prey to the nationalism movement of some other nation. Being a diasporic nation, this is, unfortunately the doom of our people -- foreign nationalism being the "default" mindset.
Can we change this? Yes, we can. Thanks to the human nature, individuals with multiple identities tend to choose the one identity as primary, which is promising most glory on the marketplace of national vanity (or national pride, if you wish). A weak nation exercises relatively little attraction on individuals struggling with their national identity, a strong nation quickly wins. We are currently an extremely weak nation with a greate potential. It means, the more Gay people actually utilize their personal potential "under the flag" of the Gay Nation, the more attracting the national identity will turn. The best thing is that most Gay people would not require to make extra efforts on the parts of utilizing their potential -- they simply are required to show flag. It's not like we had nothing to present as a nation, but many of our Nobel prize winners, famous ingeneurs and generals remain well hidden [closeted] and are mimicring themeselves under foreign flags. To persuade Gay people to love their people and be proudly Gay is an essentional step, a difficult one due to the assimilationist agenda and straight propaganda. Luckily, the tremendous cultural burden of building a nation rests upon many shoulders and we [the Foundation] are but one small piece in the whole. However, we are apparently the only ones who already grasped the process as what it is -- the nation-building.
The State, in its essence, is an advanced network of institutions and individuals. I am much more optimistic on the issue of the State than I am an the issue of the global Gay Nation. The establishing of a network depends solely on our abilities to knot the networks, the Nation can only reach those who is physically able to access national infrastucture. To put it another way: we most certainly can create our advanced network, but we will miss large portions of our people.
The State, is not about territory, even if iit is desireable to posess some. The "Gay homeland" we are speaking of, is indeed not only the city-state we have in mind. Everybody can attempt to create his private "gay homeland" by establishing local friendship networks, and moving closer to other Gay people, both spacially and mentally. We can call the entirety of it a "Greater Urnland", "Gross-Urania", or whatever we like.
-
I like the idea of protected settlements, but Im not sure about the whole gay lesbian state thing. I feel practicalities like populating it has been slitghtly over looked.
Is it always going to be a country for people fleeing persicution?
And who will be in the heterosexual countries helping young new gay and lesbians through the oppresion of being gay or lesbian in a prodominantely heterosexual country, no matter how liberal and tolerant it claims to be.
Just being practical. xo
-
We can approximately count with some 300 millions homos on this planet, and it is totally unlikely they will all move to one place. Rather the "Gay country" would resemble what Israel is to the Jewish people: a significant part of the entire community, but not the only place to live. Even if 20% of Gay population would leave their countries of origin (a totally unfounded speculation), there will be the remaining 80% to help the youngsters. Still, the best help for the young Gays and Lesbians would be to recommend them to emigrate. The more of them do, the better.
When the Gay country is established, Gay people will go there not only to flee persecution, but to experience the new quality of life. Mind you, so many people "flee" their agrarian surroundings to the cities because of the greater possibilities, and for Gays such a place would have very much to offer. Given the chance, people rarely consider their "moral duty" to stay and help others to cope with circumstances of a wicked place - on contrary, they flee as soon as possible and help the youngsters to flee as well.
-
Is it always going to be a country for people fleeing persicution?
And who will be in the heterosexual countries helping young new gay and lesbians through the oppresion of being gay or lesbian in a prodominantely heterosexual country, no matter how liberal and tolerant it claims to be.
The answer to the first question would be 'yes.' If we were contemplating some bizarre experiment like a colony on Mars, this would clearly not be a functional proposition. We're not though. Straight society manages to produce a great many homosexuals year after year... they always have done. In theory, were all the world's Gays and Lesbians to congregate in one hypothetical country, that country would likely oust the US from it's rank of third most populous country on the planet (if not, the hypothetical country would easily displace Indonesia as the fourth). Of course, no one imagines ALL of the Gays anywhere will be doing anything... just some.
As for who would remain to help younger Gays in the countries of their birth -- in principle, those people who are disinclined to separatism. There are quite a lot of them. There always will be. The care and well-being of younger Gays is a question of extreme importance, though. Quite separate from any "threat" that a Gay state might pose to the availability of older mentors to young Gays is the completely inadequate provision for their care and welfare as things now stand. Were the Gay people to set their minds to providing some materially effective assistance to their younger members, the results would certainly be welcome. They've yet to do so in any significant manner. While it is conceivable that some sort of massive emigration of Gays and Lesbians might isolate younger Gays and Lesbians who have not yet determined to emigrate or who do not yet have the means to emigrate, I hardly think that isolation would amount to an increase. Gay youth are isolated now to a shameful degree. It is not possible to abandon those you have already abandoned.
-
This has got to be the best site I have found yet. Believe me, I have been all over the net marketing my book, We Don't Need Permission: A Proposal for Homosexual Emancipation, by Pat Gaskill, listed on Barnes and Noble, Amazon.com and Borders. Published by AuthorHouse.
In this proposal, I tell my fellow American homosexuals that we should separate from the current union, and take our tax base with us. We won't see political change for us in the U.S. utill we hit the greedy money mongers in the pockets. We don't really have to coagulate in one specific geographic area. Eyes are need everywhere to see that no one is left behind. If we pull our money and resources, we can regulate whatever we choose as a people. Then we will indeed be for the people and by the people.
To grow this further, we can take a stand where we are now. Please go to the AuthorHouse bookstore and type in either the title or author, and read about the book and author for more information.
-
I would encourage anyone interested in a discussion of Gay separatism (or even the further development of Gay culture) to purchase a copy of We Don't Need Permission. It is not an expensive book by any means, particularly if it is ordered through AuthorHouse (http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~45164.aspx). As Stanskill points out, it is also available through Barnes and Noble (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781434312280&itm=1) and Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Need-Permission-Homosexual-Emancipation/dp/1434312283).
-
It will take a couple of days for my copy to be delivered, thus I must wait with detailed discussion of Pat's suggestions. Those who can't wait, can read the brief summary of the idea at AutorHouse website.
-
I carry here an intervention posted in another thread of GLR:
I must say that in Italy most people (even gay people) have no idea of what "gay nationalism" is. People often answer about gay ghettos (gay bars, gay discos, gay pride etc.): -have you ever seen a "black pride"? Or a "muslim pride"? Or discos only for blaks and muslims?- Well, in Italy we'e got a "Family day" against "Gay pride" to "fight against the people who wants to destroy the natural society through innatural couples"! Such Family day has been helepd econonmically by teh CEI (Italian Conference of Bishops) and the Holy See.
A gay nations, it's very hard to realize today if we ask a place and not an "extraterritorial nation"... Vatican docet. The Holy See is structured like a true nation but her territory is not significative. Look how they work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See.
The main organisms are set in Vatican city, then there are manies headquarters in every nation. Why don't use in a smarter way strategies and instruments they used to persecute gay people? A gay man or woman could choose to have "gay nationality" even continuing to live in his/her original country and have full access to "gay national services" in the headquaters of the nation they live... receive help, assitance etc. It would be mainly a diplomacy job so:
1) Being gay AND safe with fully recognized rights would not means move from an homeland and part of the society we belong to. Even who would rexist to the idea of a "gay nation" for such reasons could choose to accept it.
2) Maybe gays are not people for genetically reasons but we have a different way to interact with world and society.
3) Techniques allow us to have children through surrogacy... what the problem is? We an grow our children maybe they wouldn't obtain a gay citizenship if thei're straight. I don't think it would be a problem for them and even for families of gay people who are interested only in keeping tehir son or daughter close to them and see him/her happy.
4-5) Israel is Israel, it's born for a real need and built over a religious pretence. We can find another way to affirm a gay nation. Manies little pieces of lands in manies countries are not like a big piece of land in a single country.
6) To attak a gay nation allocated in manies countries is very very very hard... it could be made only by a worldly agreement between every single nation... it would be possible but in that circumstance we would however be swept away.
7) See n3.
8) Let us choose the best way to fight for our rights, without dening the rights of other people.
Is silly what i say?
Look, there are many ways to be a nation, isn't the Holy See a nation of priests who freely choosed to be part of that society: they have their laws, a sort of hidden citizenship. In Italy Berlusconi is preparing a law to advert the bishop of crimes committed by priests, before the public authority! We can be a nation better than their.
-
A queer nation, yes please!