Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[K6]

I would simply suggest that the declarations of the applicants shall be accepted as true, unless no contradicting facts become known to the autorities by one way or other. Fraudulent declarations must be punished with loss of citizenship status and be connected to a payment of not too small a fee.

In the present situation,we have no means to react beyond disowning as gays individuals who aren`t gay.More elaboration on this in Message # 35
of the English language sector of activity of the GPR,posted today in alt.politics.micronations.

K6

[K6]

Well, you must admit that there is a slight differnce between private spying out of 1 or 2 individuals and a governmentally organized observation and total control.

In a gay macropolitical society where people would tend to congregate on a polygamous basis,eveyone would come to know in detail the erotic tastes of everyone without government intervention.A bit like in a village,where people know everything about everybody.I do have also my own reservations about a gay State becoming totalitarian.But they have to do with the continuity of the State rather than with the freedom of the individual.Totalitarian States have no orderly succession or transfer of power,and eventually collapse as houses of cards,like the former Soviet Union did.There is no need for a Gaystapo.

K6

[Mogul]

Besides,why those scrupules ? Jealous heterosexuals invade each other`s privacy by hiring detectives,in order to know wether their spouses cheat on them.They say that such detectives have a field day on St.Valentine`s day,most cheaters coming out with their misstresses (or their boyfriends) on that day and in restaurants.

Well, you must admit that there is a slight differnce between private spying out of 1 or 2 individuals and a governmentally organized observation and total control. To me, the establishment of a gay state would only make sense, if its citizens have a better live and a more of personal freedoms than in heterosexually dominated countries. I do not think that it really makes a difference who is opressing you - a hetero state or a gay state, the oppression alone counts. A totalitarian gay state would voluntarily surrender the very reason for its existence - namely the demand for civil and political rights for homosexuals. 

I would simply suggest that the declarations of the applicants shall be accepted as true, unless no contradicting facts become known to the autorities by one way or other. Fraudulent declarations must be punished with loss of citizenship status and be connected to a payment of not too small a fee.

[K6]

Unfortunately, this is an approach which concerns the bedrooms and therefore the behavior is as well difficult to verify as the feelings. Who is going to control what a man and a woman or a man and a man do in a flat, when they visit each other? Any factual "proof" of homosexuality would require fascistoid state structures, and I am sure non of us would propagate this approach.

In the context of a gay geopolitical structure parallel to an heterosexual majority and state,individuals with heterosexual interests will not even hide them,unaware as they are most of the time of the existence of such a structure.Unaware also that they could become accountable for such interests should they claim to be gay while dealing with "operatives" of such a geopolitical structure.Why invade the privacy of the bedroom if the
necessary evidence is available anyway in the public places of an heterosexual society ? Besides,why those scrupules ? Jealous heterosexuals invade each other`s privacy by hiring detectives,in order to know wether their spouses cheat on them.They say that such detectives have a field day on St.Valentine`s day,most cheaters coming out with their misstresses (or their boyfriends) on that day and in restaurants.

K6

[K6]

Surely, anyone who openly lives a heterosexual life can not be regarded as gay, no matter what his feelings might be. The weak point of the GPR's definition is that it contemplates not only the current behavior, but also the past which might lay 10 or 40 years ago.

Technically,no behavior having occured before the definition was adopted (main definition on march 25,1979),our outside the territory of the GPR
(which is only 799 square kilometers in size at the moment).The normative system of the GPR follows the general organizational and constitutional lines of a state with respect to time and space.It thus also takes into account the impossibility of verifying what an individual might have actually done in a distant place or country.

K6

[K6]

Besides, what is with those who have no sex at all, because they are to shy or too ugly?  There are only feelings and no factual behavior in these cases. How are you going to define their sexual orientation while disregarding their feelings entirely?

Based on a general presumption that all adults have adhered to a sexual orientation or another,either exclusively or predominantly (Code of the
GPR,art.48,law of october 1st,1995).Among an heterosexual majority,the above indicated individual adult would be regarded as heterosexual.But
generally,individuals display tendencies - like to whom they look on the street,read as erotic material,or collection as fetishes - which are sufficient to form up an idea wether they are heterosexuals or gays.The Code of the GPR does not require sexual acts,only observable tendencies.Only newborns (Code of the GPR,art.44,law of may 18,1979) and by extent minors are regarded as without sexual orientation.

K6

[Mogul]

Wearing or displaying attributes of the opposite sex is no proof of gayness in the GPR.Failing an explanation to the contrary,it could be regarded as an heterosexual interest. [..]

Ok, wearing a cloth is not enough to count as gay, but also does not prohibit a gay from being a gay, correct? This is acceptable in principle.

[..] Sorting males from females is a matter of sperm and eggs in the GPR.The normative system of the GPR has adopted a position based on what individuals display and which can be verified.Not what they feel and which is beyond any verification.

Unfortunately, this is an approach which concerns the bedrooms and therefore the behavior is as well difficult to verify as the feelings. Who is going to control what a man and a woman or a man and a man do in a flat, when they visit each other? Any factual "proof" of homosexuality would require fascistoid state structures, and I am sure non of us would propagate this approach.

Surely, anyone who openly lives a heterosexual life can not be regarded as gay, no matter what his feelings might be. The weak point of the GPR's definition is that it contemplates not only the current behavior, but also the past which might lay 10 or 40 years ago. You ought accept that humans develope in the course of their lives and not everyone was so lucky to discover his/her true sexuality with 12.

Besides, what is with those who have no sex at all, because they are to shy or too ugly?  There are only feelings and no factual behavior in these cases. How are you going to define their sexual orientation while disregarding their feelings entirely?

[K6]

I posted a reply in alt.politics.micronations.

The definition in GPR's code is undoubtedly suitable to restrict definition of "gay" to those who are beyound any doubt of being gay. However, the definitions appear to me to be a bit too tight for the various actual expressions of gayness. For example:

"The third provision reads as "Homosexuality does not encompasses the wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex,
nor the will or the desire to belong to that sex" (Code of the GPR,art.25,law of october 16,1991)."

Do you declare hereby that it is not sufficient for a male to clothe or feel oneselfe as a female to pass for "gay", or do you exclude anyone who performs that way from being "gay" per definition? This point should be worked out more precisely.

If this was an exclusion criterion, please consider this: the "wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex" is a pretty dilatable a thing, depending of temporary fashion. An ear-ring or a  bracelett or even a dress cannot be a criterion for the definition of person's identity.

Wearing or displaying attributes of the opposite sex is no proof of gayness in the GPR.Failing an explanation to the contrary,it could be regarded as an heterosexual interest.Sorting males from females is a matter of sperm and eggs in the GPR.The normative system of the GPR has adopted a position based on what individuals display and which can be verified.Not what they feel and which is beyond any verification.

K6

[Mogul]

I posted a reply in alt.politics.micronations.

The definition in GPR's code is undoubtedly suitable to restrict definition of "gay" to those who are beyound any doubt of being gay. However, the definitions appear to me to be a bit too tight for the various actual expressions of gayness. For example:

"The third provision reads as "Homosexuality does not encompasses the wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex,
nor the will or the desire to belong to that sex" (Code of the GPR,art.25,law of october 16,1991)."

Do you declare hereby that it is not sufficient for a male to clothe or feel oneselfe as a female to pass for "gay", or do you exclude anyone who performs that way from being "gay" per definition? This point should be worked out more precisely.

If this was an exclusion criterion, please consider this: the "wearing of the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex" is a pretty dilatable a thing, depending of temporary fashion. An ear-ring or a  bracelett or even a dress cannot be a criterion for the definition of person's identity.

[K6]

In connection with the positive interest displayed by the GLR towards the written normative system of the GPR,translations into English of some provisions of the said normative system have been posted today in the usenet forum of alt.politics.micronations,along with a short commentary.See the thread titled "Seceding or not seceding,that is the question",Message # 34 of the English language sector of activity of the GPR.

K6