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]   Go Down

Author Topic: Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights  (Read 3336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #9 on: Thu, Feb 02, 2006, 00:06 »


The cultural heritage is another thing, which is certainly much more important. As we do not directly transfer our knowledge and traditions to the gay kids, much of this heritage probably goes lost for good without any notice - and this is sad.

This is one of the main reasons for seeking an independent State of ours.This would be the only place where the transmission of gay culture and political traditions could be normally effected.We haven`t the family structure of the heterosexuals to accomplish this on our own and without a State under our exclusive political control.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #8 on: Wed, Feb 01, 2006, 22:06 »

Certainly, gays are probably less fond of "saving up" money for the futture generations - but many have of course made certain investments for their older age. In what ways these savings can serve the future generations, can be of course disputed - usually some greedy relatives or legacy hunters profit from them.

The cultural heritage is another thing, which is certainly much more important. As we do not directly transfer our knowledge and traditions to the gay kids, much of this heritage probably goes lost for good without any notice - and this is sad. There are some projects in the US, Canada and Europe to preserve gay history for future generations, but it seems that they (sadly) lack financial and personal resources for their work.
"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 Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #7 on: Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 07:17 »

Gays have at least some very basic things in common with the straights: they need a home, a job and certain basic creature's comforts - the earthy interests of homosexuals must be taken into account as well.

The material and economic interests appear at first glance to be the same.But gays and heterosexuals differ in an aspect much more fundamental than economics.They find themselves in different demographic situations.Their dynamic or interests aren`t the same for that matter.Under the demographic aspect,and in the course of a quest for self-determination,we will encounter problems organized heterosexual societies never had to
face.In that case,we will have to be inventive,for there is no historical precedent.But since we ourselves modified the direction of the primeval
sexual drive handed down to us by nature,we should be able to find a demographic,social and political purpose for our own orientation.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #6 on: Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 05:45 »

The opportunistic would take into account that so-called good human nature,but would not ignore more earthly, egoistical,and possibly more decisive motives.Practitionners of Realpolitiks,which are the type of gay required to set up and maintain in existence an gay independent State,would take into account only the eathly interests of the heterosexual as causes of their probable actions.

Gays have at least some very basic things in common with the straights: they need a home, a job and certain basic creature's comforts - the earthy interests of homosexuals must be taken into account as well. :) There is no reason to believe that gays wouldn't manage such things as well as straights do. There is also no real reason not to cooperate with straights where it appears usefull or morally desireable - by times sharing the same ideals with them (e.g. environmental protection or passion for Mars terraforming). On contrary, being conscious of one's very nature gives an individual a sound basis to encounter other individuals with both dignity and respect.
"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 Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #5 on: Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 13:49 »

Very true. We must take precautions for any coming conter-revolution - and to help those who are suffering now in other countries. A permanent territorial solution would be an ideal solution. 

Some gays would simply not believe in any assurance given by heterosexuals,and would move to a gay country.The majority,believing in the heterosexuals`s assurances in part but,as a precautionary manner not in their entirety,would only send in material assistance,or at the most have in that gay country of ours only a vacation home.The heterosexuals`s assurances would thus be supplemented by a gay assurance,unilateral in kind.All would depend upon an analysis of the heterosexuals`s probable conduct.The idealists would dwell in the alledged good nature of humans in general,expect and long for its realization in the form of some utopia,and end up fooled as always.The opportunistic would take into account that so-called good human nature,but would not ignore more earthly, egoistical,and possibly more decisive motives.Practitionners of Realpolitiks,which are the type of gay required to set up and maintain in existence an gay independent State,would take into account only the eathly interests of the heterosexual as causes of their probable actions.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #4 on: Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 03:34 »

[..] Or they could cease to be liberals because the general conditions of living have changed for the worse.This perspective changes radically the perception of the freedom we now enjoy.Some say we should merely enjoy it and rest at last. I say that we should merely exploit it while it lasts,while it allows us for some freedom of thinking and of action,in the course of which we could plot the next step: putting ourselves beyond the reach of changes which could occur in heterosexual societies and to our disadvantage. [..]

Very true. We must take precautions for any coming conter-revolution - and to help those who are suffering now in other countries. A permanent territorial solution would be an ideal solution. Shifting of the basic residency and cultural posessions from country to country is possible as well, as the situation never is worsening simultaneously in all countries.
"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 Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #3 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 12:32 »


Liberals assert that we are essentially the same as them and therefore our oppression is unjust. This passes for tolerance. However, tolerance can only be tolerance of real diversity and difference. The liberal position is not really tolerant — although it is subtle — because it denies that we are different, which at bottom is another way of denying that we exist as gays. This position is absurd — if we are not different, why all this fuss in the first place?


I think that the tolerance of the heterosexual liberals is genuine.They are in quiet possession of their privilege,in social-democrat and affluent countries where they have their bellies full.The trouble comes from those heterosexuals who aren`t in secure possession of their heterosexual
privilege,among others because they have peripheral homosexual tendencies.The tolerance,therefore,is genuine.But it might not last.The liberals,for one,could loose the political power to conservatives - which is the threath hanging over us now in Canada,where the conservatives could win the election of next january 23.Or they could cease to be liberals because the general conditions of living have changed for the
worse.This perspective changes radically the perception of the freedom we now enjoy.Some say we should merely enjoy it and rest at last.
I say that we should merely exploit it while it lasts,while it allows us for some freedom of thinking and of action,in the course of which we could plot the next step: putting ourselves beyond the reach of changes which could occur in heterosexual societies and to our disadvantage.There
will never ever such a thing like resting,so long as we will retain the will to exist.Existence and independence do not come by cheap.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #2 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 08:32 »

This would explain one phenomenon of "tolerated" oppressed minorities as well: once allowed into the exclusive club of their oppressors under certain conditions, they very often tend to declare their solidarity with the oppressors and not with the oppressed. Certainly many, if not most people have the desire to belong to the majority (also noticed by Fridet on this Forum: http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=128.msg545#msg545). We all have met such shamefull behavior, e.g. when a black boy participates in gay bashing, when a rare woman in a leding position discriminates against her gay collegues and so on. Alike, many "tolerated" homosexuals publicly show contempt for their less fortunate brothers and sisters, laugh about the transes and swishes, the leathermen and readily join a witch hunt on some inconvenient individual (e.g. a radical gay activist).

Of course we are different in many respects, and we should celebrate this difference!

I have discovered a review on a book by Dr. Rictor Norton on the web suggesting the cultural unity of queers through time and space (maybe not 100% justified assumption, but still interesting):

"The Myth of the Modern Homosexual demolishes the myth that "the homosexual" was invented in modern times. With careful reasoning supported by wide-ranging scholarship, cultural historian Rictor Norton exposes the fallacies of "social constructionist" theories that currently dominate lesbian and gay studies, and argues the case for the autonomy of queer identities and culture. Addressing the general (queer) reader in clear jargon-free terms, the author unashamedly sites himself within the "essentialist" camp, and presents the evidence that queers are part of a centuries-old history, possessing a unified historical cultural identity. Norton reviews the fundamental historiographical issues about the nature of queer history, arguing that a new generation of queer historians will need to abandon authoritarian dogma founded upon politically correct ideology rather than historical experience. The author argues that queer culture — with its ethnic customs and traditions — is the proper subject of queer history, rather than the usual emphasis upon homophobia, which is little more than a history of heterosexual prejudice. He examines how queer identity has been formed by a sense of historical context as well as a sense of sexual orientation, and re-evaluates the contribution made by culturally identified queers to the recovery of queer history. He offers a clear exposition of the evidence for ancient, indigenous and premodern queer cultural continuity, revealing how knowledge of that history has been suppressed and censored. The author sets forth the "queer cultural essentialist" position on the key topics of queer history — role, identity, bisexuality, orientation, linguistics, social control, homophobia, subcultures, kinship patterns — and redraws the battle lines for future debate."

Source: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homomyth.htm
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262
Denneny's Second Proposition: Gays are Different from Straights
« Reply #1 on: Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 06:50 »

This is Denneny’s Second Proposition: “Gays, insofar as they are gay, are ipso facto different from straights.”

Liberals assert that we are essentially the same as them and therefore our oppression is unjust. This passes for tolerance. However, tolerance can only be tolerance of real diversity and difference. The liberal position is not really tolerant — although it is subtle — because it denies that we are different, which at bottom is another way of denying that we exist as gays. This position is absurd — if we are not different, why all this fuss in the first place?

By relegating homosexuality to the realm of privacy — that which is not spoken about or seen and is therefore unimportant politically (consequently “no different”) — liberal “tolerance” becomes ... “repressive tolerance” (a concept that seemed to me idiotic as applied in the sixties). The way liberals have of not noticing one is gay or, if forced to notice, of not wanting to hear about it or, if forced to hear about it, of asserting that “that’s your private life and no concern of mine or of anyone else” is an extremely insidious tactic that in practice boils down to “let’s all act straight and what you do in the bedroom is your own business....” This is the source of the liberal’s famous lament: why must you flaunt your homosexuality? ... In other words, get back in the closet and we won’t bother you..... Liberals in general tend to get upset if one tries to make an issue of being gay or if one says that being gay is an important and central part of one’s life and identity. One feels like asking them whether their own heterosexuality is not an important part of their lives. But, of course, they do not talk about heterosexuality, they talk about sexuality, which is the whole point.
Stonewall was a riot.
Pages: [1]   Go Up