Print

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

[K6]

Still, the question remains, whether it is presumptuos to extrapolate any "gay legislation" upon each and every person who would fit into some arbitrarily established definition of "gay". There are, of course, some practical considerations which would favour such a solution: the government would claim the right to represent some 500 millions people, and all gays would feel the pressure to pay loyalty to this government.

1) The definition of a gay I use myself is restrictive.It generally does not encompasses members from other sexual minorities.
2) There is a statute of limitation,both temporal and territorial.
3) Political organisation prevails over the lack of it.A gay individual or group with a clear concept of who is gay is better organized than any gay individual or group without.Lenin and his associates prevailed in Russia and in 1917 because they knew exactly what they wanted amidts a population who probably didn`t even knew who she was.

K6

[Mogul]

[..] In the absence of a gay State,gays acting as separatist political agents possess all the authority to decide who is gays and who isn`t.Playing at the game of "us and them" and "nationals and foreigners" do not require a State apparatus. [..] For matters having to do with the handling of cases of treason,individuals will eventually be considered as gays against their will.The purpose of a differenciation and definition,when it comes at sorting individuals into gays and heterosexuals,is not really to serve the interest of the individual. [..]

Still, the question remains, whether it is presumptuos to extrapolate any "gay legislation" upon each and every person who would fit into some arbitrarily established definition of "gay". There are, of course, some practical considerations which would favour such a solution: the government would claim the right to represent some 500 millions people, and all gays would feel the pressure to pay loyalty to this government. Alone, where shall the legitimacy of such a government come from? If we would talk about a government rightfully elected by the majority of gay people, I would perhaps agree to your notion that the remains of the gay population could be regarded as affiliates of this state on a regular basis. Any "government" established by a tiny fraction of the gay population would lack any legitimacy - similarly to certain self-proclaimed kings and emperors we have encountered in the recent history.

The other difficulty which I see, is the relationship between the state and its reluctant citizens. What kind of state shall this be, when the majority of the state vigorously deny their belonging to this state? You cannot seriously suggest that such a state would be acting for the best of its citizens? Or that the citizens simply do not know what is good for them? And, how shall the state institutions work - when the majority of the assumed "citizens" would rather fight this state than to participate in its political life? One cannot "rule" against the declared will of the population - therefore I cannot imagine how any compulsory naturalization shall work.

Certainly, the state must establish certain rules, which serve the community at large even if any particular individual meets some inconveniences by times. Compulsory military or social service are a heavy duty, but the people at lorge does accept it - on the premise that the citizens agree that such duties are necessary for the well-being of the society. Therefore it is clear that citizens cannot arbitrarily decide which legal provisions fit their private interest and which do not - once a citizen, an individual is subject to the law. Alone, a compulsory naturalization against the declare will would create not a new citizen, but rather an "unlawful combattant" even from the most soft-hearted fellow.

[K6]

Because of our demographic size,we will retain as an eventual State a certain advantage over organized heterosexual societies only if these societies
remain divided.Through such bodies like the UN,we would only encourage if not realistically their complete unification,at least some partial form of unification.It is unlikely that organized heterosexual societies would ever agree on such a thing like uniting on our side.More likely,they may on occasion unite against us,more precisely against some specific and controversial (to them) aspect of our policies.It is preferable that organized heterosexual societies have no common institutional body such like the UN.It will be the task of the diplomacy of a gay independent State to keep
organized heterosexual societies divided,to prevent them from agreeing on anything,to set them up occasionnally one against another,and by way of the balance of power to keep them incapable of effectively pursuing a common goal detrimental to our independence.

K6

[K6]

Whereas being a gay separatist does not necessarily require to be an integrationalist on the international area, it also does not contradict this. I think we must agree to disagree at this point - there is no necessety to be of the same opinion about this issue.
 

Such is the essence of diplomacy.

K6

[Mogul]

The political cause I serve is the one of gay self-determination.I am in the service of the gay interest.I do not,as a gay separatist,believe in those universal causes which you are evoking here.

Whereas being a gay separatist does not necessarily require to be an integrationalist on the international area, it also does not contradict this. I think we must agree to disagree at this point - there is no necessety to be of the same opinion about this issue.
 

[K6]

K6, with all respect - I do not agree to your judgment about the UN, Hague Tribunal or Amnesty International (the latter being a non-governmental organization).

The political cause I serve is the one of gay self-determination.I am in the service of the gay interest.I do not,as a gay separatist,believe in those universal causes which you are evoking here.

K6

[Mogul]

My sentiment as a gay separatist and towards such international bodies like the UN,the International Court of Justice of the Hague or Amnesty International among others is one of contempt.Wether in real life or in political simulation (like in micronationalism),these systems of so-called
collective security simply do not work in situations of conflict and/or emergency.They cannot be part of any serious political figuring or action.
For their business is confined to one thing: debating.

K6, with all respect - I do not agree to your judgment about the UN, Hague Tribunal or Amnesty International (the latter being a non-governmental organization). These organizations are not perfect, but they have achieved significant and real progresses for humanity. Of course, if certained founding members of the UN do not pay their membership dues timely, or recognize the competency of the ICJ over all but their own citizens, one cann't expect huge leaps forwards a real global cooperation. The UN is far from being a really powerfull organization, but again - humble progress is better than no progress at all.

The same must be said about Amnesty - at least they do something. We must admit that the same cannot be claimed for the most people in industriallized countries. The wealthy and healthy prefer to spend their time and money in recreational areas, instead of taking action for something they believe is good. So let us not judge too harshly over those who do something, even if their efforts are not 100% satisfying. This does not hinder us to question why e.g. Amnesty does not pay due attention to persecution of homosexuals.

Besides, we ourselves are doing scarcelly more than debating here - because debating is important. It makes people think, and changes the way they are acting. Therefore it realistically might turn out that a purely debating club has more impact onto the real world than, let's say, a radical revenge commando.

[K6]

I have little admiration for Amnesty International since their claims of support for the rights of gays have always been backed by so few actions. I have heard elsewhere doubts that there is any pogrom against gays in Iraq at all, based entirely upon Amnesty International's silence on the matter. So Amnesty International admits now that they have not been looking at this area. No doubt they are well-pressed with their legitimate concerns for the distress of the heterosexual inhabitants of Iraq. Perhaps they will find time to look into it when the matter reaches the "excavating mass graves" stage.

My sentiment as a gay separatist and towards such international bodies like the UN,the International Court of Justice of the Hague or Amnesty International among others is one of contempt.Wether in real life or in political simulation (like in micronationalism),these systems of so-called
collective security simply do not work in situations of conflict and/or emergency.They cannot be part of any serious political figuring or action.
For their business is confined to one thing: debating.

K6

[K6]

This is certainly true. We have extensely discussed the issue of being gay, and had to admitt that there are very differing views on "Who is gay". As this linguistic controversies cannot be arbitrarily decided by few individuals or even by the gay state per decret, all the administration of the future gay souvereign entity can do is to decide who is either gay citizen or gay national (and is therefore under protection of the gay state), and who is definitely non of those 2 categories. A person can become citizen solely by formal naturalization performed by authorized state officers, and certainly not against his/her will.

A differenciation between gays and heterosexuals already occurs de facto and in real life.It is performed by both sides and by most individuals.And there is no effective way to oppose it since differenciating people into categories,whatever they are,does not lend itself to physical opposition.If
heterosexuals do not regard us as heterosexuals,we are left only with the option of proclaiming and affirming a distinct,separate and viable gay
identity.In the case of gay separatists,the differenciation between gay and heterosexual will possibly be more elaborate,that is eventually with formal definitions.In the absence of a gay State,gays acting as separatist political agents possess all the authority to decide who is gays and who isn`t.Playing at the game of "us and them" and "nationals and foreigners" do not require a State apparatus.Jews have had a definition of who is a Jew for the last 3,000 years,and for most of that time had no independent State of their own.A gay State,when it comes into existence,will be faced with such an accompished fact as a differenciation between gays and heterosexuals,already performed by gay separatists themselves.
For matters having to do with the handling of cases of treason,individuals will eventually be considered as gays against their will.The purpose of a differenciation and definition,when it comes at sorting individuals into gays and heterosexuals,is not really to serve the interest of the individual.It
is to serve the collective interest of the people.Particularly when it comes to its political independence.

K6

[K6]

One problem sticks at the discussion, and this time the problem linguistics. If we are to become one people, we should decide which term we use to describe us as a people with one word? I am thinking of the dilemma of "gay and lesbian", "queer", "LGBT" and "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people" - over short or long time it becomes pretty tedious to use the appropriate full form in a discussion or a legal document.

I have been speaking English as a second language since the age of 10.When I speak,write or read in English,I *think* in English.To me,"Queer" sounds derogative.Native English speakers could confirm or infirm that impression.

"Homosexual" also sounds derogative,in any language I speak.

"Gay" is fine.I have explained once its origin,but I shall mention it again for newcomers.The word "gai" (gay in English,same meaning) was used in its current acceptation and in France in the 17th century.It then applied to people like us.How did it made a comeback by way of English and in the 1970s,I do not know.

The LGBT is a coalition of circumstance and of divergent and possibly conflicting interests.It seeks an arrangement within the context of heterosexual societies.Because of its "B","T" and possibly also "L" component,it is too closely associated with the hethro cultural lifestyle and political regime to secede from it.We should confine ourselves to the "G" component,of which loyalty to the gay lifestyle we are certain,and not include people who have profited from hethro domination.

The LGBT has besides its own international movement: the ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association),which within the limitations of its
political agenda still does fine work.Our idea here it to set up a gay independence movement.Not to congregate with other sexual minorities as brothers and pigs.

K6

[Mogul]

Of course,we are debating here theoretically about a gay independent State.Which doesn`t exist at the moment.In the absence of a gay State,there is no corresponding citizenship. There is only the status of gay,if ever some gay groups did developped it in a formal way. [..]

This is certainly true. We have extensely discussed the issue of being gay, and had to admitt that there are very differing views on "Who is gay". As this linguistic controversies cannot be arbitrarily decided by few individuals or even by the gay state per decret, all the administration of the future gay souvereign entity can do is to decide who is either gay citizen or gay national (and is therefore under protection of the gay state), and who is definitely non of those 2 categories. A person can become citizen solely by formal naturalization performed by authorized state officers, and certainly not against his/her will. Being a gay national means that the person belongs to the gay people and falls into the spere of interests of the gay state, dispite the formal naturalization could not be accomplished yet by some or other reason. It would be only fair to regard any homosexual person as gay national, unless the person explicitely declares that he/she does not wish to be regarded as such. This approach is very practical, as it would give the gay state the moral right to act on behalf of any homosexual individual without any further paperwork, and at the same time recognize the personal right of self-determination.

One problem sticks at the discussion, and this time the problem linguistics. If we are to become one people, we should decide which term we use to describe us as a people with one word? I am thinking of the dilemma of "gay and lesbian", "queer", "LGBT" and "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people" - over short or long time it becomes pretty tedious to use the appropriate full form in a discussion or a legal document. It would be extremely usefull to find one linguistic construct to encompass all the categories we are meaning, without hurting the feelings of any of the involved groups. Actually, initiall the word "gay" seems to have been was used to describe all forms of homosexuals (male and female), while a "lesb" was of the same level as a "catamite". How comes we are talking of "gay men" and "lesbians" now? The word "queer" is nowadays used for the same purpose as "gay" long time before, but some cautious minds are ironasing already that times of "queer men" and "lesbians" are coming soon.  So how shall we proceed in future? Personally I am inclined to suggest the use of the word "gay" encompassing prevalently homosexual men and women as well as transgenders associating themeselves with our culture, therefore "gay state" and "gay homeland" being applied for all the described groups. Of course we could start using the word "queer" instead, but isn't it a bit too arbitrarily used for any slight sexual diviance as well? I am thinking of prevalently heterosexual beings who use to cloth and talk in what they think is a "gay manner", and even have now and then a short homosexual "affair". Nothing be said against this, but this "metrosexual" thing is not exactly what we have in mind when we are talking about the gay culture and gay identity. So what now? It would be a greate help if some lesbians would let us know, whether they are fine with the integrative use of "gay" or whether they feel discriminated against by this.

[..] Political maturity is not something we can require from a gay yet,though we might try to develop it among gays by way of political education.In any case,it remains possible that individuals who haven`t matured quickly all by themselves,and before a separatist gay organization can come in existence in order to educate them politically,won`t have the means to be gay. [..] Political maturity,for the time being,is only for the cadres of some eventual gay separatist movement.Once a gay State is in existence,yes we could have a general civic education for all gay immigrants before they become citizens. [..]

What I had in mind by suggesting the necessity of "political maturity" for citizens was not a particular political belief, but rather the ability to make funded decisions. A person is free to refuse any particular theories, but he or she must know these theories. The citizen can be expected to know how to read and write, know basic history of the mankind and the history of gay movement in particular. The knowledge of different state systems, basic economic and political theories, as well as a minimum knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences shall be made compulsory for anyone desiring to participate in political process. I am not talking about high matematics and extensive studies of greek philosophy, simply about a minimum set of knowledge.  One may argue that such a demand would unjustifiably discriminate against those who come from "third world" countries, but I had recently made the experience that even many people from the "industrialized world" are not really informed about how the world functions. It would therefore be in our all interest to offer compulsory curses for those who fail to pas the basic examinations. As far as our knowledge of gay history is concerned, I am most sure that we all will have to take a cours or two to close our education gaps -- there are actually only very few scholars who have an advanced knowledge of this subject.

The education of potential political elites is a quite another topic. Though I am highly impressed by the French approach (nurturing of all the elites in one École), I at the same time dislike the potential danger of totalitarian education. We should avoid monocultures on the field of education, therefore a couple of good schools of various olitical coleur should be accepted as explicitely welcome. The state can impose certain requirements for qualification of its officers, however - this would ensure efficiency of the state apparatus. We should generally not confuse politics and administration - they are pretty different things. Whereas the administration and justice should be the domain of professionals, the field of politics does not require extendedl knowledges - the basic education and common sense are everything one needs. I suggest therefore that the future gay state be a mixture of democracy and meritocracy - the professionals on each field must have the possibility to withhold the politicians from entirely stupid decisions.

The citizens of a gay State should know at least a couple of foreign languages.That greatly facilitates relations in a multicultural environment.You get an idea on how someone else thinks or dreams when you master his linguistic mean of communication.

The experiences in Netherlands show, that the majority of the population can learn one or two foreing languages without further difficulties. It is a good idea to encourage people to learn foreign languages, especially in a multilingual society. With appropriate education programs we could both promote linguistic skills of our people and supply a good part of the population with jobs in this sector.

[K6]

It will be important to let the people learn about each other's original cultures.

The citizens of a gay State should know at least a couple of foreign languages.That greatly facilitates relations in a multicultural environment.You
get an idea on how someone else thinks or dreams when you master his linguistic mean of communication.

K6

[K6]

I purposefully emphasize the word citizen and make a difference to inhabitants and immigrants here:  whereas the country must be open to any gay/lesbian immigrant, it is not said that political rights are free from certain obligations. It can be expected that an individual who desires to achieve the right to vote has also the necessary level of political maturity: therefore he/she must aquire additional knowledges before becoming a full citizen. Simply course in gay history and state theory, and a language course. Everybody can make it, and everybody needs it to be a responsible and participating citizen.

Of course,we are debating here theoretically about a gay independent State.Which doesn`t exist at the moment.In the absence of a gay State,there is no corresponding citizenship.There is only the status of gay,if ever some gay groups did developped it in a formal way.Political
maturity is not something we can require from a gay yet,though we might try to develop it among gays by way of political education.In any case,it remains possible that individuals who haven`t matured quickly all by themselves,and before a separatist gay organization can come in existence in order to educate them politically,won`t have the means to be gay.They will compromise culturally with the hethro side,to the point of being hethro dissidents of the regime bearing the same name,rather than gay opponents to it.Political maturity,for the time being,is only for
the cadres of some eventual gay separatist movement.Once a gay State is in existence,yes we could have a general civic education for all gay
immigrants before they become citizens.Yet,I would retain this feature,borrowed from the jesuit order,to skim the gay society out of its best elements and give them a special and advanced political education,so as to have professionnal cadres for the government of a country of ours.
A sort of a modern and secular monastic order,devoted exclusively to the service of the gay nation and State.All the more than the gay population among which it will be recruited will already be entirely free of any family obligation,and thus available for such a service.

K6

[Mogul]

[..] An individual who has succeded in being gay in an overwhelmingly heterosexual enrivonment has,in my view,passed the test for gay citizenship.So much the better if he did it by being curious enough to study history,even better gay history,but this shouldn`t be a requirement to be a citizen of a gay and independent geopolitical entity,micro or macro.[..]

The political maturity of citizens will be a central issue for the gay state, as many immigrants will come from less developed areas and will have probably a lower education level, then, let's say is usual in Japan or Western Europe. Democracy can only function well, when the citizenship consists of educated and responsible individuals. Don't get me wrong: we aren't talking about mathematics or chemistry, we are talking about political maturity. This includes first of all the knowledge of (own) history and understanding of democratic principles. The citizens must know the official language, understand basics of economy and know the legal and political structure of the country. I purposefully emphasize the word citizen and make a difference to inhabitants and immigrants here:  whereas the country must be open to any gay/lesbian immigrant, it is not said that political rights are free from certain obligations. It can be expected that an individual who desires to achieve the right to vote has also the necessary level of political maturity: therefore he/she must aquire additional knowledges before becoming a full citizen. Simply course in gay history and state theory, and a language course. Everybody can make it, and everybody needs it to be a responsible and participating citizen.

[K6]

I agree with you, of course, that gays from different countries seem to be very similarly tempered. To describe it more precisely, the differences between ethnic groups are much less significant, than the differences within any ethnic group. However, the cultural differences between people from Asia, South and North America and Europe should not be neglected fully. It will be important to let the people learn about each other's original cultures.

I live myself in a multicultural society,where little attention is payed to such differences.It is true,though,that many of the newcomers to Canada
and in the city where I live are closely related culturally to the local Québécois group.Latin american immigrants are so to speak cousins of the Québécois,even linguistically.I am talking here about a society which hasn`t a goal as precise as a gay politically independent society,and yet which works smootly.We do not know on this side of the Atlantic where we are heading exactly with multiculturalism,only that we are part of some new society in the making.

K6