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   Go Down

Author Topic: gay homeland  (Read 16984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #32 on: Thu, Sep 29, 2005, 15:29 »

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.


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

Jaix

  • Guest
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #31 on: Thu, Sep 29, 2005, 09:13 »

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

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #30 on: Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 14:55 »

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.
"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: gay homeland
« Reply #29 on: Mon, Sep 19, 2005, 09:31 »

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
"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
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #28 on: Mon, Sep 19, 2005, 03:07 »

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.
Stonewall was a riot.

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #27 on: Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 20:20 »


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

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #26 on: Sat, Sep 17, 2005, 23:45 »

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...
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #25 on: Sat, Sep 17, 2005, 23:35 »

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
« Last Edit: Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 00:40 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #24 on: Sat, Sep 17, 2005, 20:55 »

...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.
« Last Edit: Sat, Sep 17, 2005, 21:26 by Vizier »
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #23 on: Sat, Sep 17, 2005, 20:51 »

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
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #22 on: Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 04:57 »

[...] 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

"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: gay homeland
« Reply #21 on: Tue, Sep 06, 2005, 05:59 »

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
"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
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #20 on: Tue, Sep 06, 2005, 05:55 »

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.
Stonewall was a riot.

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #19 on: Tue, Sep 06, 2005, 01:27 »

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

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262
Re: gay homeland
« Reply #18 on: Sun, Sep 04, 2005, 19:39 »

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.
Stonewall was a riot.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up