GLR Forum

General Forum => Open Forum => Topic started by: khol99 on Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 03:31

Title: Hi
Post by: khol99 on Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 03:31
Well let me introduce myself, im phil a biotech scientist in training and gay ofcourse, i came across this site a few years back but didn't join back then. to start with im a supporter of a gay state.

ive read alot of ur discussions, they seem quite interesting and i hope id be able to contribute. i myself have some ideas in respect to the "territory" issue.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: Feral on Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 05:29
Feel free to speak your mind. I love contributions.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: khol99 on Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 14:21
Well from what ive read here most suggestions seem t be focused on tiny islands and barren expanses of land, but ofcourse they all are claimed by one nation or another and the likely hood of anexing any is rather low.

my suggestion would be to forget about trying to adquire any of those islands and to instead focus on unclaimed region. it may sound unfesible but im my opinion the best option would be to claim a table mount, bank or guyot, there are quite a few that are located within 0 tp - 20m (with expanses often 10+ km wide at such depths) in depth in international waters. and i suppose that the investment of placing stilts or a floating structure would be way less than trying to buy a strip of land from an existing nation, plus such settlement would be open to economic development based in sea industry.

another less desirable prospect would be to claim part of Marie Byrd Land, and settle near exposed ground, the sea can be harvested for food, energy and construction materials.

i know none of my ideas are the idylic white sand beaches most would like to settle a hedonistic nation (well maybe an equatorial sea mount might do) but imho they are the most realistic areas to place a settlement without legal hassle.
Title: Re: Hi
Post by: khol99 on Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 20:16
Ive also read ur concerns about demographics, some of the most recent and conservative estimates place homosexuality being prevalent in about 1 ind every 10 persons, some others as high as 1/4. imho such as suggested here would have a way higher natural ration since the "nurture" component would pro gay and who know the natural ration in a pro-gay environment may even be 1/4. and with a steady migration rate of gays from other nations might push up the equilibrium over the 50% mark through out future generations.
And the overall equilibrium could be shifted even higher if reproduction (homosexual) through ivf is regulated in order to select towards homosexuality, to date no gay gene has been established but there is already hints at how it might be selected for: ( (
sSo it might be quite possible and likely to take some voluntary regulation of IVF to improve the chance that the nations offspring will be homosexual, which combined with the influx of immigrants the overall effect may well push the demographics towards a high homosexual majority.
some may say that its unethical, but then again similar data may well be used other societies to select for lower incidence of homosexuality which most likely wont be seen as an ethical issue in their case, so why cant we do it for our own mean too.