Print

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

[Leoroc]

Well we could always call the gay special forces the  "Sacred Band" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

[Athrael]

This Bizantine diplomacy sounds well.  However,I wish to remind you that Gays make only some 5 - 6% of the world population, and that the territorial city-state would accomodate a tiny percentage of us. The big straight world can certainly do well without os spending our scarse ressources to tamper poverty-plagued countries' benevolence. Mind you, all the Gays living in Diaspora will still continue to pay taxes to their respective governments already, instead of paying their taxes to the Gay State. If at all, the Government of the Gay State will be forced to bribe poor countries in the immediate neighbourhood of the city-state, to secure it's mere existence. But there will be certainly ways to establish cooperation with other countries - being a supranational structure in its nature, the Gay State will certainly have good connections to the industriallized areas of the world. Will we have many friends? I doubt it - but if a few enemies will be forced to calm down, it will be a victory. Diplomacy is a means of war, too.

The insular position might be the best fom the military view. A couple of ships can be distributed over the surrounding waters to guarantee no hostile aircraft can approach the island in one piece. 

However,I wish to remind you that Gays make only some 5 - 6% of the world population,

The USA holds about 1% of the population of Earth yet holds 20% of its wealth.  Right after the X-mas Tsunami, there was a debate about how much each nation was donating to the cause, the USA was "shamed" into donating more when countries like the Dutch were donating a larger percentage of their GNP (Got to love the Dutch.)

The big straight world can certainly do well without os spending our scarse ressources to tamper poverty-plagued countries' benevolence.

Sure the straight world can, but it doesn't. This leaves us with a wide open territory to demonstrate that the GLBT nation serves the whole world in ways that no other nation appears to be able to do. 

Scarcity of resources depends on how the GLBT Nation approaches business and industry. If it seeks to place its industry in the lines of limited resources then those resources will be scarce. Needless to say the GLBT Nation will have the opportunity to start off on the right foot, meaning seek to establish itself on the renewable resources path. If it decides to plant and grow its materials, alcohol fuel, food, etc - then with a little more sweat equity can it reap a larger bounty. There are ways to make a little land produce a lot more product than currently used globally - the relative wealth of land for other nations has lead to squandering of those resources and using methods which produce lower than optimal product.

Mind you, all the Gays living in Diaspora will still continue to pay taxes to their respective governments already, instead of paying their taxes to the Gay State.

That will chiefly be their choice. They will choose to live where they live for their own personal reasons.  At the same time we can not collect taxes from them I seriously doubt that we can expect support from them when their personal home(s) are at risk.  To be honest I think we should expect little to no help from them in the early years, and little help later on. Unless we can get them to invest something - some real solid interest in the GLBT nation - going back to the notion that the GLBT nation will be a corporation set up - investors ("free" society GLBT) - people are selfish, its in the nature of the species - if they have something of value (to them) on the line then they will be more interested.

I would even suggest caution on their political help should their "homeland" get froggy. At home interests always come before distance interests.

But there will be certainly ways to establish cooperation with other countries - being a supranational structure in its nature, the Gay State will certainly have good connections to the industriallized areas of the world.

Don't count on it. You ask most of the GLBT about a Gay Nation and they react negatively to the notion - it sounds like separatism to them, it sounds like volunteering to go to the concentration camp. It will take years and decades for the idea to grow on the GLBT in self imposed diaspora to accept the GLBT nation. Once (and if) the GLBT nation proves itself to be more than just a glorified concentration camp.

The insular position might be the best fom the military view. A couple of ships can be distributed over the surrounding waters to guarantee no hostile aircraft can approach the island in one piece. 

An island or a group of islands is well suited for military protection. With modern weapons and technologies (sonar, radar - long range and medium ranged weapons) an island is a fortress.

However the use of a few well placed long ranged missiles (even conventional ones) are enough to take out a small island or a chain of islands. Missiles are still difficult to take out once launched.  of course we can assume that that technology will change in future.

[Mogul]

Secondly we should strive toward other humanitarian goals. Granted our agenda will seek to help GLBT first, but it would be wise to curry favor in the rest of the world by being a source of humanitarian good will.  If, as example, we adopt mariculture (food and pharmaceuticals) as part of our main economics, we would sell a large percentage of our products in the free world market, we would also donate a substantial chunk to those nations where poverty demands help. Politically it will force the bigger nations and national conglomerates to have to stand next to us and defend us against "rouge nations". It is more difficult to start a war with a humanitarian nation that it is with one that appears indifferent to the rest of the world.

This Bizantine diplomacy sounds well.  However,I wish to remind you that Gays make only some 5 - 6% of the world population, and that the territorial city-state would accomodate a tiny percentage of us. The big straight world can certainly do well without os spending our scarse ressources to tamper poverty-plagued countries' benevolence. Mind you, all the Gays living in Diaspora will still continue to pay taxes to their respective governments already, instead of paying their taxes to the Gay State. If at all, the Government of the Gay State will be forced to bribe poor countries in the immediate neighbourhood of the city-state, to secure it's mere existence. But there will be certainly ways to establish cooperation with other countries - being a supranational structure in its nature, the Gay State will certainly have good connections to the industriallized areas of the world. Will we have many friends? I doubt it - but if a few enemies will be forced to calm down, it will be a victory. Diplomacy is a means of war, too.

The insular position might be the best fom the military view. A couple of ships can be distributed over the surrounding waters to guarantee no hostile aircraft can approach the island in one piece. 

[Athrael]

Something different makes me worry: what would be the most favourable position for the Gay State be, from the military point of view? The world in the next future will be most probably multipolare, since we can expect the formation of some supranational structures on all continents. It also seems that in each region there are one-two majour countries which tend to dominate regional politics and economy. In North America it's the US, in South America it's Brazil, in Asia it's China and India, in Africa it's Nigeria (South Africa?), and in Europe it's probably Germany-France axe.

Now, what are the military prospectives for a Gay State to be located somewhere in some or other hemisphere? We already have discussed the location on a mainland surrounded by large friendly neighbour country (Canada, Brazil ?), as opposed to an insular position etc. Now, is it really so smart to rely on the constant friendship of a close neighbour? What if such a country turns less Gay-friendly? Shall we pay more attention to the dominant religions in such a country (even in the entire region), or rather calculate with the short-time political advantage?

At first the GLBT nation will have to rely on its allies nearly 100% for its military defense. However it will also have to build up its own military, seeking for a defensive posture in the years to come. Air superiority is the best to date he who rules the sky rules the war.  However we are all well aware of how expensive that that venture can be. We will have to rely heavily upon the protection of bigger allies in the early years, but I suspect that we will also be able to broker deals toward building up a stock-pile of military arms and equipment while working toward building the infrastructure and design of our own weapons.

The policies of the GLBT nation will have to be toward neutrality. We will not voice an opinion on most of the global issues, or pick sides in such things like this War on Terror. Our focus on bring the GLBT out of those nations where being GLBT is a death sentence or a sentence of imprisonment should afford us some allies who will view this as a humanitarian project.

Secondly we should strive toward other humanitarian goals. Granted our agenda will seek to help GLBT first, but it would be wise to curry favor in the rest of the world by being a source of humanitarian good will.  If, as example, we adopt mariculture (food and pharmaceuticals) as part of our main economics, we would sell a large percentage of our products in the free world market, we would also donate a substantial chunk to those nations where poverty demands help. Politically it will force the bigger nations and national conglomerates to have to stand next to us and defend us against "rouge nations". It is more difficult to start a war with a humanitarian nation that it is with one that appears indifferent to the rest of the world.

As time progressed and we develop a defensive force (military) we would still work toward solidifying our friendships with our allies.

Total military dependence on any nation will ultimately make us a servant to its needs and desires. If not by force then by the threat that it could pull its protections from us in a time of need. And yes if you are part of the region and rely solely on that region to protect you then independence will not actually be.

I imagine that the grown of a GLBT military would stem from internal police/security where ground warfare will be trained. Then the second main objective would be some sort of defensive armory, ground to air, ground to ground/sea hardware that is easy to control and can be managed by few men and women. Lastly the building of a fleet of ships/aircraft working toward the goal of mastery of the skies above it.

* * * * * *

The GLBT Military will have to be different from other Nation's.  It can not focus on all three aspects of land, sea and air with different branches. Air is important and strategically a must have. Land or Sea will depend much on where the GLBT nation is physically. If land locked then having ground forces is important, if on an island or in the ocean then a Navy is more important for military defense. If it has a shore on the sea and land, it will have to combine the two forces into one, say a "marines" sort of thing.

Ultimately the military is going to have to wear many hats. Not only acting as a defensive front line against hostile attacks, but it should also function as internal police, coast guard, forestry division, etc. Again our policies must be ones of peace, they must be ones to prevent us from starting war. Our military must then function as a peaceful venture that can easily switch to a defensive posture against hostile activities.

[Mogul]

Please do expect wolves in sheep's clothing - spies will be sent in to the GLBT Nation, they will report back everything and anything that that nation does. That intel will be "interpreted" most likely through bigoted eyes.

Didn't K6 once suggest to spread certain rumors about what happens with hostile agents captured by the homosexuals?  No need for the rumors to be true, but think of a heterosexual spy in an entirely Gay society! Think, as an American spy in Russia, you can learn to speak Russian without too many pains, but those straight spies will be required to learn totally different skills, to appear credible...

Something different makes me worry: what would be the most favourable position for the Gay State be, from the military point of view? The world in the next future will be most probably multipolare, since we can expect the formation of some supranational structures on all continents. It also seems that in each region there are one-two majour countries which tend to dominate regional politics and economy. In North America it's the US, in South America it's Brazil, in Asia it's China and India, in Africa it's Nigeria (South Africa?), and in Europe it's probably Germany-France axe.

Now, what are the military prospectives for a Gay State to be located somewhere in some or other hemisphere? We already have discussed the location on a mainland surrounded by large friendly neighbour country (Canada, Brazil ?), as opposed to an insular position etc. Now, is it really so smart to rely on the constant friendship of a close neighbour? What if such a country turns less Gay-friendly? Shall we pay more attention to the dominant religions in such a country (even in the entire region), or rather calculate with the short-time political advantage?

[Athrael]

The US used to have a draft (I signed up on my 18th birthday) Plus it also had the standing "professional" military where folk volunteered.

I had no problem signing up for the draft, I considered it as a manner of patriotic duty. I would think that a draft like program would work to meet the needs of a war. Since most citizens will be immigrants, it would be draft sign up as they reach the nation instead of when they reach a particular age.

Training everybody for military service would also be seen as a military build up that (to those watching) would be viewed as hostile intent.

Further it would make no sense to train everybody to throw hand grenades and shoot guns against missiles, planes, tanks, etcetera. It will take years if not decades for the GLBT nation to buy or build the machines of war.

Please do expect wolves in sheep's clothing - spies will be sent in to the GLBT Nation, they will report back everything and anything that that nation does. That intel will be "interpreted" most likely through bigoted eyes.

[Mogul]

Again we should not be too quick to deny rights of citizens to be pacifists either due to religious, cultural or moral beliefs. Its that slippery slope of unequal equality. I do know a few gays who are Buddhists, who believe that is it best to turn the other cheek. [..] Forcing the issue, drafting or making mandatory military service smacks of a police state. It sets up the feeling that something is not quite right. Conscripted warriors tend to make lousy warriors, they tend to run away, go awol or die faster than those who have the will and the internal need to serve.

I understand your point of "unequal equality", but I disagree. In principle, it is obviously a wrong to force an individual to serve contrary to his/her will. On the other side, nobody would be coerced to apply for the citizenship -- the issue is entirely up to the individual Gay person. Being citizen implies both rights and duties, a facts which is often overseen. A state does not become a police state simply by enforcing the law and requiring citizens to fulfill their duties. If the danger of war is immanent, a society hardly can afford the luxury of being considerate of personal sensitivities. I can imagine lots of reasons why people wouldn't wish to fulfill their duties, their convenience being one of many. Another reasons would be financiial losses suffered during the times of service, or the simple fear of being killed in a battle. Obviously, when drafting recruits, the state ignores all of these other possible concernes -- otherwise, only a tiny minority of the citizens would actualy serve. In case of a compulsory service, I do not see why religious, cultural or moral beliefs shall have such an outstanding importance in comparison with other reasons why people might detaste military service. If there were a compulsory service, this service must be compulsory for all citizens. It would be wise, of course, to show some consideration of faith when determining the exact kind of service place -- e.g. by deploying Buddhists into civil duties instead of fighting troops. Reasonable regulations can be established, allowing the person to depict his/her preferences for the place of service -- sniper or medical orderly.

Quite another issue is, of course, the question of whether there should be a compulsory service at all. I am clearly "pro" compulsory service, because this is the most relyable way a) to set up security/defence forces, and b) to educate large numbers of reservists. The notion on professional army being superiour to a militia is indeed most convincing, but there are lots of tasks which can be done by reservists as well. Clearly, in a neighbourhood of a very hostile country the need for military will be very different in comparison to a very protective neighbourhood.

Besides I seriously doubt that the Gay nation would strive to make a war, instead its policies and motto should be neutrality in world politics, a second Switzerland. Switzerland is neutral in wars, but she is more than prepared to defend herself. Thus if war is brought to the Shores of the Gay Nation there will be many volunteers to fight.

Unfortunately, one doesn't always have the choice. Switzerland is in a convenient position that no one dislikes this nation or has substantial interests in destroying this nation. With some 84 countries criminallizing homosexuality (7 or 8 imposing the death penalty), I would say we are already in a state of war -- with or without having our Gay State. The Gay State would hardly be able to abstain from taking action against at least those 7 or 8 hostile countries, be it even in covert action.

Now I know that plenty of our bothers and sisters have served in military around the world, I presume flying a false flag of being "straight". I also know that there are those who, called out and discharged, have a loyalty and a desire to protect and serve in such a manner. I doubt there will be a dearth of willing and eager individuals who will welcome serving in a military that doesn't care about their sexuality.

Yes, we would have the greate chance to profit from the stupidity of certain governments discharging their well skilled soldiers from the military. Not only would we not care about their sexuality, we would praise it and encourage it. 

[Athrael]

The first point would be a temporary, initial state of affairs. To be frank a deception. It would be used as long as it took to build up the means to protect its self, to establish a foothold which once established should be more difficult to remove than proposing at first a gay nation then meeting opposition that would, most likely, result in a still birth of said nation.

The "corporation" would be a false front to the real business behind the store. Sort of like organized Crime business where they present a "legal" acceptable business to the peering eyes of the public, while behind that there is other business, other plans taking place.

In fact Crime organizations appear to have no problem pulling members into their ranks, operate in such a way as to where the public do not seem to notice them, yet at the same time appear to prosper as a "secret society".

Again this would be a temporary state of affairs, once the man power, the technology, the fire power and all of that is in place then we all join hands and scream "We're Queer, We're Here!".

A switch over from "corporation" to Government is really not that big of a step either. Heck if that model does not appeal to you then have a government waiting in the wings - all set up without any mention of its existence until it is needed to walk out on stage.

Getting the "foot in the door" is important. No I do not trust Canada, and other "gay friendly" nations. I suspect that the outcry to a "gay nation" will be a knee-jerk reaction. They - the rest of the world, has a habit of denying us as much as they can and do fight tooth and nail to oppress us every step of the way. Personally I am tired of playing by their rules - I'm tired of fighting every step of the way. I suspect that many of our brothers and sisters are tired as well and would prefer to take the path of least resistance to get to the point where resistance is futile.

Even in a place where it is illegal to bear arms, there is a wide and diverse black market where everything and anything can be purchased for a price.  Granted one needs to be somewhat inventive in hiding these "toys".

Yes what I suggest is not only illegal but also immoral, but then I are gay and I am going to hell anyway (Ask the Majority) I might as well have some fun on the way. It is that mentality that we are up against  - desperate situation demand desperate solutions.

I am 42 years old now, I came out of the closet when I was in my twenties, please forgive me if decades of open hostility against me have made me able and most willing to take any steps necessary to get around "problems".

_ _ _ _ _ _

I fear we all have our bigotries, our petty hatreds. Even I am prone to a few minor bigotries. It is part and parcel of human nature. However the difference with me is I strive to be tolerant, I strive to overcome my natural "fears" of Other through self education and compassion.  Societies tend to leave education in these manners to the individual and most individuals are ill prepared to make self changes. Society as it stands does not actually teach compassion, it preaches it but rarely does it demonstrate through its actions what that means.  More of a do as I say not as I do.

I would wager that a Gay nation would, as part and parcel of its policies, endeavor to teach through demonstration what compassion is. A reminder that we are a persecuted people in the world would remind us that we ourselves are victims of bigotry.
_  _ _ _ _ _ _

Again we should not be too quick to deny rights of citizens to be pacifists either due to religious, cultural or moral beliefs. Its that slippery slope of unequal equality. I do know a few gays who are Buddhists, who believe that is it best to turn the other cheek. Conversely I also know militant gays that have to have people sitting on them to prevent them from becoming terrorist extremists - needless to say they would be more than happy to serve in the military.

Now I know that plenty of our bothers and sisters have served in military around the world, I presume flying a false flag of being "straight". I also know that there are those who, called out and discharged, have a loyalty and a desire to protect and serve in such a manner. I doubt there will be a dearth of willing and eager individuals who will welcome serving in a military that doesn't care about their sexuality.

Forcing the issue, drafting or making mandatory military service smacks of a police state. It sets up the feeling that something is not quite right. Conscripted warriors tend to make lousy warriors, they tend to run away, go awol or die faster than those who have the will and the internal need to serve.

Besides I seriously doubt that the Gay nation would strive to make a war, instead its policies and motto should be neutrality in world politics, a second Switzerland. Switzerland is neutral in wars, but she is more than prepared to defend herself. Thus if war is brought to the Shores of the Gay Nation there will be many volunteers to fight.

Perhaps along with a standing military would be government sponsored programs that would teach the use of firearms, self-defense etc open to the general public so if there is a need the general public could take arms and stand in defense of the nation already prepared in the basics.

[Mogul]

Of course one can delay the need for a military if one plays their cards discreetly. Going back to my thread on a floating society. Start off as a corporation a business which just happens (by accident of course) to have gay investors and just happens to have a habit of attracting gay workers - all accidental, of course all kept quiet and not really a problem.

This strategy might indeed prove very successfull with a manifold of local projects - after all, maintaining a private security service is entirely legal in most legislations. The gay-owned fabrics and enterprises may employ whomever they want, either. However, the slowly-take-over strategy has one severe drawback: when straights don't know about it, the gays will not know about it as well -- or, when gays know it, the straights will get to know about it pretty quickly as well. The solution of this dillema is as simple as it can be: there must be one central political entity which will be known to both straights and gays, whereas all the manifold business activities of any structures affiliated to this entity do not necessarily need to be disclosed to people who don't need to know about them. It is understood, though, that our officials and citizens should remain within frames of legality when they are acting on territories controlled by friendly states. Posession of weapons might be illegal on territories controlled by some governments, while others would readily sell you anything from pepper spray to dive fighter -- thus, solely some consideration of contract parties must be considerated.

Further if you are seriously wanting a "Free and equal" Nation that tolerates gays then you must extend that equality to all front to the extreme.  We gays should be keenly aware of false equality and how it affects a people and us as individuals. To turn around and be just as abusive to any minority in our Gay Nation will doom us to complete and utter failure and will open the doors for internal revolution and resistance.

Yes, indeed -- there will be little point for people to leave one discriminatory society to face just another form of bigotry and discrimination. The State will be in duty to educate the little gay bigots who will reach its shores -- making it clear that such behaviour is inacceptable in gay society. However, lesbians will be most probably be perfectly able to put any bigoted gay male back to his place without further discussion by themselves.

In any event, my current thinking is that a Gay state would require compulsory military service, both as a prerequisite for citizenship and as a civil duty. I cannot imagine any factor that would wholly disqualify or exempt a person from such obligations. I would not be willing to guess whether the number of women would be equal to the men. I could suggest that the proportion of women in the military would be the same as the proportion of men in the military: within certain requirements, "all of them."

Well, severe health issues are actually the only reason why an applicant for the citizenship might be excluded from the compulsory military service. It will be of course smart to employ the service folks in correspondence with their bodily and mental skills as to achieve the best effects for the country. For the overall majority of citizenship applicants, military services will do no evil anyway - the military of our days is much more than simple jump and run and dig and shoot. Learning languages, acquiring additional techical skills and socializing with other gay individuals might become an additional component of the military service. In case someone is in a hopelessly weak physical shape this person can be charged with something more to his/her other abilities -- teaching, arranging salads, whatever. 

[Feral]

Will it have a Don't ask Don't tell policy against the straights?
...
As for Women in the Military. You bet they should be there, in equal numbers to the men.

I don't know if I've ever posted a view on this specific issue. In any event, my current thinking is that a Gay state would require compulsory military service, both as a prerequisite for citizenship and as a civil duty. I cannot imagine any factor that would wholly disqualify or exempt a person from such obligations. I would not be willing to guess whether the number of women would be equal to the men. I could suggest that the proportion of women in the military would be the same as the proportion of men in the military: within certain requirements, "all of them."

Speculation on armed conflicts is a little "out-there" without a geographical location. There are some states in the world who would, quite likely, be willing to expend military force against a Gay state "just because." It would not be a good idea to locate a Gay state in proximity to these places. Diplomatic agreements with one's neighbors are necessary for every state. Military force to guarantee those agreements is, I think, required in the case of a Gay state, even though some states manage quite nicely without a military.

[Athrael]

Will it have a Don't ask Don't tell policy against the straights? 

More seriously, I fear that a military and a police force will be needed. Islam and Christianity hold some similar view on some points, Homosexuality being one.

Hatred and Bigotry are part and parcel of the human condition. Its not going to vanish once gays move away. In fact it will grow and fester once we do establish a nation apart.

When I attended a Gay Pride Fest in San Francisco I over heard one person telling another "We should drop a bomb in the middle of that and get rid of all those fags in one blow."

This mentality is thought by many, fortunately few actually carry forth these plans. Either because they are weak or do not have the means to accomplish these things. It is thought and devoutly wished, and we can assume that once there is a Independent, declared Gay Nation that it will suddenly be the target of so much hatred that those who can attack will take their punches.

Of course one can delay the need for a military if one plays their cards discreetly. Going back to my thread on a floating society. Start off as a corporation a business which just happens (by accident of course) to have gay investors and just happens to have a habit of attracting gay workers - all accidental, of course all kept quiet and not really a problem.

If that corporation happens to be located in a isolated place where it is not feasible for workers to commute, then it would naturally grow a town around it. If the majority of its citizens happen to be design oriented, oh well coincidences happen besides these are workers for the corporation not a movement not a "threat".  If there is a need to promote an initial influx of "workers" then by all means carry forth a whisper campaign - a suggestion that X Corporation is very, very gay friendly and tends to hire gays over straights but not as an official policy.


As the corporation and its attending town and other facilities grows there will be a growing need for internal security. If that corporation produces a product that is relatively easy for thieves to steal then the need for security increases.  Going back to the floating society of my previous thread, the main industry would be fish farming, that alone would require boats and vessels. Not only for shipping to and from the mainland, but also for patrolling and protecting the farms from natural predators and of course pirates.

Pirating is still a very real problem in the open ocean. Some of the pirate operations are pretty technologically advanced - a corporation with a vested interest to protect would naturally meet such a threat with excessive advanced technology in return. Not as a military threat but as a security precaution guarding not only company assets but company personnel as well i.e. the factory/farm. the town and the shipping of cargo to and from the mainland.

Open international waters are not protected.  If you feel that the belief in pirates is not strong enough to explain why the corporation needs gun boats and sophisticated sonars and what not to flush out potential enemies and stop them dead in their tracks then you have to create the illusion that there is a serious threat that must be addressed.

To be blunt if there isn't a need for security then you manufacture one. Governments manufacture needs all of the time. I think we can all think of instances where wars, police actions etc are based upon staged events opening the doors for governments to make policies, departments, laws to increase security.

Generate a reasonable need for excessive force, generate the belief that a security force armed to the teeth is necessary, not a threat to others, but a form of protection from an enemy.  In the age of terrorism one could easily use that - plant a bomb someplace and blame Islam. I think it is safe to assume that somebody somewhere has already used the terrorists to their advantage somewhere.

No need to target a populated place, target a secondary key facility of production one that could potentially cripple operations but harm no one. Who can blame Corporation X from suddenly investing in a security force that has armed cannon placements, a virtual navy, and air force patrolling and at ready to defend against any other potential attacks?

The USA was established as colonies well before the Declaration of Independence was Served to England. Although we can safely assume that the first pilgrims had a notion of striking out on their own, once they established themselves, once an economy, military and populace was installed.  England suspected such behavior and passed laws limiting what the colonies could and could not do and produce to generate a false dependence on the crown. Thus it took so long for the USA to reach the point where Independence was possible to declare, although the pilgrims left the Old world for the New for freedoms and to escape persecution.

We are looking at a repeat of history here, we have a people who are seeking freedom from oppression and persecution. They can not all gather together on a couple of acres and say "We are Free" they will have to be sneaky about it, they will have to establish a base of operations under false pretenses, they will have to move many pieces and pawns on the board setting themselves up to where there is least risk of failure when they proudly announce their independence.

The Goal is to reach a point where independence is possible, to reach that goal may require finesse and treachery. Considering the enemies, Religion, right wing conservatism, homophobia some concessions will have to be made at first to establish the base of operations, to have what is needed in place when independence is declared.

----------------------------

As for Women in the Military. You bet they should be there, in equal numbers to the men. Women are territorial creatures, more so than men in many ways. Who cares if they are menstruating? Seriously women are ceo's, doctors and a lot of other things and the cycle of life doesn't hinder them.

I would be a bit more careful facing a platoon of menstruating dikes as a male, come on women who do not like men, on pms with guns - that is a scary thought. Not so much a joke either but a serious thing to consider.

Also consider that many of the enemies to the Gay Nation will be patriarchal in nature. Islam does not allow women to be anything more than possessions to be owned by men. Men do the fighting and they are ingrained to accept women in a way that the western world sees as barbaric. Facing a military of women would have some psychological advantages - if a defeat in battle takes place that can have severe moral consequences for those kind of men.


Further if you are seriously wanting a "Free and equal" Nation that tolerates gays then you must extend that equality to all front to the extreme.  We gays should be keenly aware of false equality and how it affects a people and us as individuals. To turn around and be just as abusive to any minority in our Gay Nation will doom us to complete and utter failure and will open the doors for internal revolution and resistance.

[Mogul]

Further, we have to discuss the womyns role in the GRAF... [..] My reasoning for that one exclusion is due to the hygienic conditions which are associated with menstruation.  (If a women doesn’t have a cycle for what ever reason she should have full access to all MOS’s) However, I do know that Russia in WWII used womyn as snipers and the Vietcong use womyn as general guerrilla combatants so if someone can tell me how they dealt with this issue effectively I will be glad to change my opinion.

This was a good one!  Honestly, I believe that upon 1 week on the battle field any hygiene questions play a rather subordinate role, the soldiers only thoughts cycling around his/here survival. The best way to deal with menstruations (female) and hurt butts (male) is to give the people a day or two for recovery, the rest of the time they can do their duty as usually. The said problem of womyn reportedly happens once in a month, this certainly can be managed.

Also we have to think about how would the military be armed what will the military be armed with, what is an acceptable cost to operate the military et. al.

Well, I can imagine 2 geopolitical situations which will secure our survival:

1) A continental location surrounded by one large friendly neighbour (Canada, EU, Brazil?) which is ready to guarantee our defence; or
2) An insular solution somewhat distant from the neighbouring nations, they can be then hostile if they choose.

The first case is a solution chosen by the Vatican State, San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, Costa Rica etc. Non of these countries would be able to resist the invasion by a foreign aggressor on their own, therefore they totally depend politically on their patron, but also can spare lots of money otherwise wasted for military. We can go this way for a certain duration of time only, because in case of political climate change within our neighbouring state (which happens pretty often in history) we would get a serious problem.

The second case would require practically no standing army, but rather naval and air forces to keep invaders away. The military advantage would be always on our side, because any planned assault will be timely discovered and the approaching landing vessels destroyed. The only thing required would be high-tech naval forces and really good air defense. 

A good army of the Israeli or Taiwan type would suit us very good, however the Israeli solution of permanent deterrence and ground-bombing of its neighbours has a little detail which distinguishes its situation from ours: they have good friends, we do not. The "Big Satan" is helping the "Little Satan" with heavy amunition and high-tech war machinery, but who would help us as readily?

Beyound having a good navy, I would suggest to support the growth of the merchant marine: this would make our neighbours dependent on our services and lessen the hazard of being involved in hostilities. In case of necessity, the merchant ships can be upgraded for the military service and thus would magnify our naval forces.

[CensoredAgain]

I have to admit I subscribe to the idea; the best defense is a good offence.

I think the best model of state defense is the IDF (Israel Defense Force).

I am not keen on an age requirement for an adult to join the GRAF [(Gay Republic Armed Force) or what ever title chosen] The only requirement should be physical and mental ability to perform basic combat tasks and the tasks required by one’s chosen MOS (Military Occupational Skill).

I also believe that Physical Requirements must be standardized based on MOS not by age or gender.

Further, we have to discuss the womyns role in the GRAF...Will they be given full access to all MOS’s or will they be restricted to non-combat MOS’s.  My personal opinion is that females should be given full access to all MOS’s including combat MOS’s with maybe an exception to access to infantry and similar MOS’s.

My reasoning for that one exclusion is due to the hygienic conditions which are associated with menstruation.  (If a women doesn’t have a cycle for what ever reason she should have full access to all MOS’s) However, I do know that Russia in WWII used womyn as snipers and the Vietcong use womyn as general guerrilla combatants so if someone can tell me how they dealt with this issue effectively I will be glad to change my opinion.

Also mention previously was a mandated two year commitment to the GRAF.  That short of a time is bad public policy....The reason being the time and cost associated with training personnel for certain MOS’s.   Mandated service time should again be determine my one’s chosen MOS.
I think it would be wise to do a cost analysis to determine the minimum length of time of mandated service.

Also we have to think about how would the military be armed what will the military be armed with, what is an acceptable cost to operate the military et. al.

[Mogul]

If a country like this is to survive it needs a very strong and very capable military. Also acquiring a few nukes that would hit anywhere in the world would be a definite bonus as well too. For a time being military service of 2 years would be required of every citizen.  I would be more than happy to serve. Hope to see a little bit of front line combat as well.

The military will indeed be essential for securing the survival of the Gay State - not only because certain theocracies would desire to destroy the new "Sodom and Gomorrha", but also because some biased and self-appointed "world police" states might take offense on legal practices in this state and would strive to invade it. Though I can't imagine any sensible reason why any democratic state shall instigate hostilities against a gay country, we had to learn that superpowers do not really need sensible reasons to harass a country which proved to be annoying out of some reason. The only thing which can effectively prevent invasion is an expected blood toll for any potential aggressor - not any moral scruples or international treaties.

The high-tech defense is essential, especially every means to achieve air prevalence. Beyound this, the question arises what kind of military doctin the Gay State shall pursue? Certainly, posession of WMD proved to be an efficient means of deterrence, but wouldn't such weapons be actually useless in the hands of the Gay State because any enemy state will also be populated by significant numbers of homosexuals? We must strive for military strategies to effectively destroy military and economic infrastructure of aggressor states without causing large numbers of civil victims. Beyound this, there is no actual reason for the Gay State not to reply with military force to hostile actions - e.g. by arresting the merchant ships of an enemy.

The usual arguments against required military service usually involve involuntary servitude. However, we are here talking about a nationality based entirely on immigration. While it is quite normal for countries to have inhabitants who are there by no choice of their own, this would not be the case with a gay nation-state.

Being a citizens always means having both rights and obligations - one can't choose only the the rights and politely refuse the duties. If there will be a compulsory military or civil service, than it must be compulsory for all halfway healthy citizens, without any privilegies on grounds of wealth, sex or education. Indeed, accomplishing the military or civil service might be made a pre-condition for gaining the citizenship - just to make sure the new citizen is ready to contribute his/her share. Though the idea of a permissible choice between the military and the service is a nice one, realistically this matter will be regulated by the actual defence situation.

There is also no need for the military to be an oppressive organization based on stupid marching. Modern military often resembles any other high-tech occupations with high level of professionalism and respect.

[Feral]

The only countries that don't need a military to secure their defence are countries that have no enemies. I don't think anyone would suggest that a country based largely upon sexual orientation would have no enemies.

The usual arguments against required military service usually involve involuntary servitude. However, we are here talking about a nationality based entirely on immigration. While it is quite normal for countries to have inhabitants who are there by no choice of their own, this would not be the case with a gay nation-state.

While many people would like nothing better than a world brimming with peace, love, and understanding, this is not the case.