GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"  (Read 27419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #75 on: Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 10:44 »

Entirely agreed. The feelings are decisive.

This point requires more detailed explanation. What kind of deeds and "observable or detectable homosexual tendencies" do you mean? Beyound refusal to engage in heterosexual activities of procreation, what else can a virgine gay man bring for his defence if his gayness is questioned by a jealous neighbour or a malicious political opponent?

 :=SU

Gays being humans,a flaw would indeed exist in the person implementing a definition of who is gay,whatever that definition might be.But the absence of any definition would pave the way to even more arbitrary decisions.Heterosexuals have no definition of who is an heterosexual,and
they do not really need one: they have the numbers and hold the political power.Whomever they decide not to regard as heterosexual is not
heterosexual in their eyes.Without appeal.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #74 on: Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 05:16 »

[..] An individual could have never actually been involved in homosexual intercourse,and yet be regarded as gay. [..]

Entirely agreed. The feelings are decisive.

[..] But then,there must exist deeds pointing out to a refusal pure and simple to adhere in any way to heterosexuality,caused by observable or detectable homosexual tendencies.

This point requires more detailed explanation. What kind of deeds and "observable or detectable homosexual tendencies" do you mean? Beyound refusal to engage in heterosexual activities of procreation, what else can a virgine gay man bring for his defence if his gayness is questioned by a jealous neighbour or a malicious political opponent?

 :=SU
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #73 on: Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 04:04 »


§ 13. Being gay or lesbian makes an individual eligible to gain affiliation to a territorial or non-territorial gay-lesbian political entity ("gay state"). The affiliation requires assertion of being gay or lesbian and an avowal towards the gay state.

In the GPR,it is a bit different.Allegiance towards the homosexual orientation is required,either in an exclusive or predominant manner.An individual could have never actually been involved in homosexual intercourse,and yet be regarded as gay.But then,there must exist deeds pointing out to a refusal pure and simple to adhere in any way to heterosexuality,caused by observable or detectable homosexual tendencies.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #72 on: Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 03:45 »


§ 10. Men and women typically can be sexually attracted to ether the opposite sex, to their own sex, or to both sexes. They can be accordingly roughly classified as heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals.

The category improperly called "bisexual" is not recognized by the GPR.The GPR sorts all adults as heterosexuals or gays,based on the exclusivity or predominance of heterosexuality or of homosexuality.Failing an explanation in a situation of incorrectly labled bisexuality,heterosexuality is regarded as predominant.Minors might be regarded as without precise or settled sexual orientation.Definition of a minor according to the normative system of the GPR: "Is to be regarded as a minor anyone who has not yet reached the stage where he is in position to assume the reproduction,the custody and the rearing of human beings" (Code of the GPR,art.73,law of march14,1979).No specific age has been established for the transition between minority and majority,because the onset of puberty could vary depending upon environmental factors or evolution.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #71 on: Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 02:18 »

I have posted a reply to a definition of "gay" by GPR in alt.politics.micronations. It is mostly my personal contribution to the problematics of being gay/something different. Though it might look like a code, it is simply a primitive approach to the issue, ordered in a way it seemed logical to me.

K6, "Your definitions are very effective in preventing any heterosexual (or suspected heterosexual) from fraudulently assuming the precious name "gay", this much is true. On the other hand, using such tight definitions would inevitably cause exclusion of many factual
homosexuals from being "gay" contrary to their declared will and self-perception.

My personal definitions would be as following:

§ 1. Human beings have an identity, which first allows them to percept themeselves as persons.
§ 2. Each human being creates his/her/its identity by him/her/itselfe, depending on the  incorporated values and on historical, ethnic, gender and sexual background.
§ 3. The human identity is subject of permanent development and re-construction, since humans learn in the pace of their lives and may re-think their values with progressed knowledges and life experience.
§ 4. Human beings can be born as biological males, females or intersexuals (hermaphrodites).
§ 5. The intersexuality is a complex issue and is subject of current medical research. The state has a duty to protect intersexual individuals from operative treatment directed towards arbitrary adjustment either to the "male" or "female" habitus. Due to its complexity, the issue ought be treated separately.
§ 6. The cultural definition as a "man" or a "woman" is a societal invention, connected to certain social roles, and does not entirely correspond with the biological appearence of human beings.
§ 7. In case the self-perception as a "man" or a "woman" is contrary to the biological gender of the individual, the person is called transgender (transsexual). Any fancy attitude of wearing specific cloth or body decoration does not classify the person as being of particular gender.
§ 8. An individual is free to identify his/her/itself as a "man" or a "woman", as somewhere in between, as being of the "third sex", or completely refuse to assume a gender identity.
§ 9. Intersexuals and transgender ought be treated separetely, therefore §§ 10-13 do not apply to them.
§ 10. Men and women typically can be sexually attracted to ether the opposite sex, to their own sex, or to both sexes. They can be accordingly roughly classified as heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals.
§11. The actual sexual behavior does not necessarily correspond with the inner sexual orientation of a person. Juvenile homosexuals are often socialized as heterosexuals and pressed into heterosexual behaviour, inclusive heterosexual marriage and "natural" procreation. Homosexual acts between intrinsic heterosexuals (as they occur e.g. in prisons or in the army) do not entail re-classification of these individuals as homo- or bisexuals.
§ 12. Male and female homosexuals who are aware of their sexuality and regard it to be an important part of their identity, are gays or lesbians respectively. Previous heterosexual experiences, descendency or closeted lifestile in strongly hostile environment do not constitute impedimenta to being gay or lesbian. Homosexuals who participate in activities directed against homo-, bi-, intersexuals and transgenders as a group are not gay or lesbian.
§ 13. Being gay or lesbian makes an individual eligible to gain affiliation to a territorial or non-territorial gay-lesbian political entity ("gay state"). The affiliation requires assertion of being gay or lesbian and an avowal towards the gay state.
§ 14. Bisexuals, intersexuals and transgender can gain affiliation to a territorial or non-territorial gay-lesbian political entity ("gay state"), if their individual case fits rather into homosexual pattern than into heterosexual one. They must provide an avowal towards the gay state as well.
§ 15. Human beings have the right to freely discover their sexuality complying to their individual biological and mental development. Pressing on a child to correspond with pre-defined sexual role behavior violates the right for sexual self-determination. Sexual intercourse with pre-adolescent individuals violates their right for sexual self-determination and might cause severe emotional distress or serious mental problems. Enforcing sexual intercourse against the will of a person is a very severe crime. Offenders shall be prosecuted considering the age of the victim and the actual harm they have caused.
§16. The gay state must provide asylum to any person persecuted because of sexual orientation or sexual identity, even if this person does not fulfill the conditions for becoming a citizen.
"
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #70 on: Tue, Feb 14, 2006, 02:07 »

A minor part of the debate was splitted and merged into this topic:

http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=196.0

This is a routine procedure with the intention to keep particular topics close to their initial issue.

8[
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #69 on: Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 18:24 »

There is indeed no reason why society shouldn't accept any new child as a "communal" issue. Such model for child-rearing is probably more easily realized in a village than in a highly urbanized area. The "communal" child-raising will probably also influence its tendency to remain the "communal property" in older age and make poliandrie a more common phenomenon. =))

Polyandry could originate in an issue having to do with public order.I have no precise idea on how we gays would congregate in a situation of political independence and freedom.But disputes could arise between various informal clans or tribes over the possession of this of that most
handsome individual.In the novel of history and fiction over which I have worked from 1986 to 1990,the matter is tackled.The arrival or immigrants of the teenager group led to pitched battles and riots over their appropriation by rival clans of the same age group already settled in the country.Ports and railroad stations often became scenes of disorder and rampage.The then gay state had to intervene in registering individuals under specific clans or tribes,in order to avoid further disputes of that sort.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #68 on: Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 17:19 »

I disagree on another hand with any idea of maintaining the institution or structure of the family on gay sovereign soil.If an when reproduction restarts,it will be solely through cooperatives using modern reproductive technology.And the children will be the property of the cooperative constituted by a group of adults, more or less like in the early Israeli Kibbutz system.There will be no more private initiative in matters having to do with human reproduction,under the general principle that it takes a village to produce a citizen.

There is indeed no reason why society shouldn't accept any new child as a "communal" issue. Such model for child-rearing is probably more easily realized in a village than in a highly urbanized area. The "communal" child-raising will probably also influence its tendency to remain the "communal property" in older age and make poliandrie a more common phenomenon. =))
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #67 on: Sat, Jan 28, 2006, 01:07 »


Do you mean "reproductive activity" = male-female sex?

With possibility of conception,yes.Without possibility of conception,no.Without possibility of conception would include 1) with contraceptives or
2) a couple having one member sterile or beyond the age of reproduction.Heterosexuality among non-gays may be recreative,but must confer
no power (read here *political power*) in matters of demographics (which gays do not possess as individuals and in the same fashion as
heterosexuals).

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #66 on: Sat, Jan 28, 2006, 00:50 »

Why "sort" them? Let's say there is simply no right for citizenship by birth, instead the right for permanent residency for minor children of citizens untill they become full-age?


For clarification and in my mind,the status of gay is the equivalent to the one of citizen.I am entirely in agreement with the idea of no status of
gay (and thus of citizen) by birthright.Each individual must earn it,and cannot ow it to the deeds of his parents.I disagree on another hand with
any idea of maintaining the institution or structure of the family on gay sovereign soil.If an when reproduction restarts,it will be solely through cooperatives using modern reproductive technology.And the children will be the property of the cooperative constituted by a group of adults,
more or less like in the early Israeli Kibbutz system.There will be no more private initiative in matters having to do with human reproduction,under
the general principle that it takes a village to produce a citizen.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #65 on: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 23:35 »

While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history.

People who read no books about history won`t encounter the idea of self-determination,and won`t conceive of its possible application to our situation as gays.

How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow. And to compound my error by not considering the prospect that only Europeans and Canadians read books on history-- unforgivable on my part, many apologies.

To contribute my humble opinion to this debate (which was overdue anyway   ::)): Rumors about Americans being unable to read, write and speak in whole sentences seem to be strongly exaggerated. =)) Despite the wide-spread opinion, many Americans indeed do read books and even learn foreign languages. Some of them were even reported to visit the city library by times.  How comes now that Europeans and Canadians often have such prejudices about Americans? Well, Europeans and Canadians watch to much American TV – and judge from idiots on the screen about the entire American population. It must be said in our defence, however, that solely Americans themselves are responsible for:

  • people who they let into their TV studios (incl. their presidents); and
  • the omission to watch Canadian and European TV in turn.


A nation which brings out such pantry cooks as we are lucky to know, cannot be that much hopeless.  >:)

As for the history as such, one thing is true – Americans indeed do not know what a total war on their own territory might be. No hurrican, no single terroristic attack can be compared with the experience of an area-wide sheelfire, with entire countries being almost wept out from the landscape. In Europe we know from our parents and grandparents how it was during the nazi time and under communist regume, how people were haunted from one edge of the word to another – and this is an experience almost all European families have in common. It's not easy to be an optimist if your complete family was sent to Sibiria, disowned 3 times within 75 years, one grandfather fallen in the age of 21, another spent 15 years in Gulag and so on – the list is long. This is a story almost every European can tell you about his own family with only minor variations. Therefore it is indeed difficult for us to share the optimism so wide-spread among most Americans – we simply know it better.

On the other side, one can not seriously claim that American gays can learn from others how to act properly. It's simply a matter of fact that American gays were pioneers in the post-war gay rights movement. They were also the first to deal with the AIDS epidemic – and have lost the dynamics in the eighties. From the eighties, Europe fulfilled a remarkable developement in gay rights and seems to be the one to lead now. Not that Europe were homogenously progressive, but the most liberal countries like Netherlands lay on our continent. From those pioneers we all learn and get our inspirations.

The same way I was sometimes asked to fill a form an hour or so before the landing of my flight in a foreign country,in which I undertook not to work while present there, non-gay visitors would sign an immigration form in which they would undertake to have no reproductive activity while in a gay Republic.

Do you mean "reproductive activity" = male-female sex? I think everybody can reproduce himself how much it pleases him/her with whoever possible –what harm shall happen to the gay state from this? And how shall we come to such a thing as to prohibit somebody from having sex? By times you make me fear, K6! =))

We could waive the visa requirement for close relatives or persons with an invitation from a gay resident and citizen.The basic characteristic of independence is that we would choose the non-gays we are interested in dealing with,and exclude the problematic elements of the heterosexual societies without any possibility of appeal.Older non-gays beyond the age of reproduction,and with gay descendants already citizens and residents of the gay State,could be made permanent foreign residents.We have to take in consideration here those heterosexual parents who protected their gay kids,who have thus rendered a service to the gay nation,and who deserve a reward for their contribution.

Certainly very sensible suggestion. Generally I would pleadge for the right of permanent residency for dependents of citizens – be it their old parents or their minor children.

3) All individuals from the onset of puberty and capacity for participation in reproduction and rearing of other human beings to be regarded as adults,and sorted into heterosexuals and gays.In case of doubt,the individual to be regarded as heterosexual.The age of majority could be set at 15 or 16 at the lowest,or at 18 at the latest.

Why "sort" them? Let's say there is simply no right for citizenship by birth, instead the right for permanent residency for minor children of citizens untill they become full-age? The gay ones can subsequently apply for citizenship. Also I would suggest that between application and naturalization sufficient time shall pass; instead "in doubt" the applicant shall be counted as gay (if he himself assures being so). Who shall anyway determine the "gayness" of the person not engaged in any sexual activities? I think it should suffice to keep the possibility to withdrow the citizenship if it comes clearly out that the applicant provided wrong informations about his sexual orientation.

See also:
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=17.0
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.0
« Last Edit: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 23:40 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #64 on: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 18:22 »

How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow.

My original point consisted only in informing Mogul about the deficiency of an historical and geopolitical approach to gay self-determination with
American participants.Not in insulting,lecturing or even less guiding the said participants.There are strong points in the American character which
I will not miss to point out when the occasion arises.The merely sexual character of the gay minority in the US is not really a local phenomenon.
Gays in many liberal countries,including Canada,have devoted too much time at developping the erotic aspect of their sexual orientation,which has thus grown to monstruous proportions.Whereas their political and organizational aspects remainded underdevelopped,without even a movement
seeking political independence.

K6

Ninja_monkey

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 19
  • Adversus solem ne loquitor
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #63 on: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 17:01 »

How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow. And to compound my error by not considering the prospect that only Europeans and Canadians read books on history-- unforgivable on my part, many apologies.
It's all about the thumpa thumpa.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #62 on: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 13:29 »

While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history. 

US gays pain and toil under the common fate of the gay people.Certainly,they are capable of developping tactics suited to their environment,which ressembles more to the 18th century than to the 21st.But I would have been quite surprised to see them as the first to establish an internet discussion group about gay political independence and Statehood.People who read no books about history won`t encounter the idea of self-determination,and won`t conceive of its possible application to our situation as gays.They might also oppose it,and be in this case among the first to do so,though and to be fair to US gays it is rather a sexual minority other than gay and very common in the United States which then will be involved.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #61 on: Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 13:05 »

Elsewhere you have commented on the ignorance of Americans as regards other countries' history and political situations. It is, therefore, my sad duty to inform you that the CPC is nothing at all like the US Republican Party. Just for the record, the CPC is roughly similar to the center of the US Democrat Party. In Canada, people who openly espouse the current views of the Republican Party are prosecuted for hate crimes -- and rightly so.

The conservative party in Canada has the same agenda as the US Republican party as far as gays at least are concerned.It may not be obvious at
first glance because it operates in a different environment,where it could encounter opposition on a large scale and,yes,also face prosecution for
hate crimes.It therefore displays a leader with a baby face,who distracts us from the sight and statements of his other associates,present and past.That`s how things happen when dealing with a population who,for at least a part,fears conservatives and is not passive towards conservatism as is the population of another country.The packaging is different,but the contents is the same.It is better not to believe the canadian conservatives,especially should they say that they are different from their US Republican colleagues,because they aren`t.And if the current conservative canadian government does not move to abolish the recently adopted gay marriage,it is thanks to its minority as a government and not to its good nature.It it formed the majority in the parliement,it wouldn`t be stopped by any hate crime statute.

K6
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5   Go Up