General Forum > Gay Homeland - General discussions


(1/2) > >>

Well Jeff that is an idealistic Utopian notion. God bless your heart I take you it haven't been exposed to real human beings. 

The truth is if you are gay you are hated. In fact you are hated by over 56% of the "western" world which touts equality and tolerance.  The rest of the world, well more like 75 to 80% would just love to hand you off a fence and let you die.

The reality is that no community in the world will ALLOW you to build a gay community. Granted there are Gay communities like the Castro District in SF Ca - that was created during a time when economic and political situations left a neighborhood open to being bought by just anyone and the residents, um, drug addicts, criminals, chronically poor rented from Slum Lords who didn't care who owned the next building as long as they still turned a profit on the misery of others.

Same thing applies to other known gay communities where the gays moved into "bad districts" took over by sheer force of buy-out power and built a community.

Needless to say the Castro and other like communities are loathed and despised and would, if push comes to shove be burned to the ground if the people surrounding them thought they could get away with it.

I lived there, I knew my neighbors, I also heard all manner of slights and sayings and the mutterings of dark thoughts and dark dreams to bomb the Castro to et rid of US.

So what you are dealing with is not an internal "gay" problem - you are dealing with a majority that hate you and I - hate us so much that they secretly and not so secretly want us to die.  Thus so many are actually thrilled when in the 1980s the Gay Disease was taking care of our numbers and why, even though AIDS targets far many more heterosexuals globally than homosexuals it is still called the "gay disease"

Placing us in to open concentration camps surrounded by the enemy will only make matters worse. It will open the doors for targeted hate crimes which I fear are still not as big of a concern if your a faggot compared to being a nigger or a kike.

Aside from other logistical and related problems.  Gay communities or colonies are already here, unfortunately they do not afford the same rights and freedoms as the straights get, they do not actually protect gays from bashing, if anything it makes it easier for gays to be bashed - these colonies are loathed and hated and barely tolerated.

As for opening up your colony for investors - only if they are gay and if they live there.  See others will if not on purpose then through accident attempt to destroy this thing. Economy is the best way to destroy a community - target and destroy the economy the rest falls. Detroit is a good example, at one time she had a strong economy due to the mills and car factories - all of that was taken away and the city is in financial ruins, the rich and middle class moved away leaving behind the poor which resulted in higher crime rates as the poor sought anyway out from poverty including illegal methods. 

The best way to go is a single colony or a region which can be called a nation - with national defenses and an open door immigration policy perhaps one that allows if not insists on duel citizenship of its citizens and is quick to call out other nations that allow the abuse of our sisters.

Dear Jeff,

of course you didn't say that having straight kids would be a problem! Sorry, if my clumsy sentences have produced this impression and have lead to a misunderstanding. :)

What I mean by the term "straight kids problem" is the demographic change in an (isolated) gay society with a 9:1 ratio of gay:straight kids. This is just a biologic reality and would turn any (isolated) gay/lesbian state into a "normal" state within few generations. As we do not want to create a perfect "normal" state (with said 9:1 ratio straight:gay), this demografic change is a phenomenon which would endanger the idea and the nature of this gay state. The devolopement as such would be nothing bad or problematic, but the state would cease to be a gay/lesbian state, that's all.

Now, as we seek a solution for maintaining the gay majority in the population of the said hypothetical state, the discussions about mechanisms of such regulations are absolutely legitimate. There are more problems connected to the idea of a gay state, than the matter with kids, e.g. the question about parents and relatives which stay abroad, possibly less qualified jobs, less comforts and less opportunities to go to musea, zoo etc. I am well aware about this problems, and that's why so many people are sceptical against the idea of the gay state. But, once again, there are also serious arguments pro an gay/lesbian state, and this would be not an isolated society but open for letting gays in and straights out (if they wish so!).

Your argument about no nations known to grow through immigration is not really a good one ;) because the US itselfe grows through immigration to a high degree. Novadays even old european countries like Germany as well maintain their population through immigration. Indeed, the "gay people" as such has an immense demographic potencial worldwide, even if only few percents would decide to leave their birth countries. As gays are born year for year probably till the end of the world, this demographic potential would not vanish but supply the gay state with new citizens for future.

The problem which I see is rather the founding than the maintanance of the "gay state". In the very first decades it would be difficult to persue people to leave their highly industrialized countries and move to a kind of bare land scape, be it a tropical paradise itself. This problem is closely connected to what you call the "three-dimensional developement" and was observed by the early attempts to establish the state Israel. Most people are not just "gays" or "jews", they are highly complex individuals with a lot of different interests and they are used to a high level of culture. That's why it was difficult to bring jewish people to move to Palestina in the early twenties of the past century, and that's why we would have difficulties to bring many gay people to any landslape far from civilisation. Only the future can show, whether the whole attempt is worth the energy invested into it, and there are different estimations for such a project to succeed, that's true.

The fact is also, that most gays and lesbian would stay in their native countries and there is a lot of work to be done for the gay liberation worldwide. No doubt, the cultural developement of gay people is as much important as the improvement of their political rights, alone, gay artists are not really under-represented among their collegues! ;D ;D ;D

Hi Vicky,

Thank you for your post. I just wanted to clarify that I don't consider the presence of heterosexual children (or gay or bi ones for that matter) to be a "problem." As far as I know I have never used the phrase: the "straight kids problem." I strongly regret and apologize if that's how my statements have come across. What I was trying to point out was the effect child bearing and child rearing would have on the demographics of any state or community which aspired to become, or remain, gay-majority.

I think most people would agree that gay procreation (in whatever form it might take) and gay adoption are increasing, and will continue to increase as more gay folks desire and discover the joys of family life. And this is not just gay females pursuing this. Many gay males desire this as well. It is a natural, human impulse.

When I wrote in my first post of homosexuals becoming a more three-dimensional people, I suggested that this would entail three elements: the sexual, the social, and the cultural. By social I meant the conscious and organized encouragement and promotion of gay marriage, family, and community. While marriage and family life will certainly not be the goal of everyone, these three institutions still form the foundation of any viable community; and without them a demographic group can hardly be considered a people (or at least not a fully developed people.) This process of three-dimensionality is happening today, slowly but surely. Everything I suggest in these posts is meant to encourage and advance this process.

There is an 'old-school' definition of homosexuality (largely put forth by our opponents past and present) which attempts to define us as an essentially sterile people. This is one of the harshest criticisms against us. But this historical lack of procreation had - and has - far more to do with our isolation from ourselves (though the fear of being open and out) than to any largescale lack of desire or ability we might have to form families. The rising rate of gay-parent households is evidence of this. We are clearly a people in transformation.

This ongoing development of homosexuality needs to be taken into consideration, for it represents the future. It is the new-school definition which will obliterate not only the old-school definition, but a large part of the stigma itself.

In my opinion, what this means, is that in any state, colony, community, ect. that results in a gay majority (or significantly larger gay minority) homosexuals will feel much more confident, and have much more opportunities, to pursue family life. And this will result in an ever increasing amount of children from gay parents. And, unless some fundamental social or biological change occurs, the vast majority of these children will be non-gay. While the immigration rate might be larger at first than the birth rate, in time this would most likely reverse. No nation I know have has ever sustained an immigration rate larger than its birth rate.

Now I don't view this as a 'problem.' It is simply a demographic fact. There will be a lot of kids, and a lot of them will be heterosexual. They will not have any problem finding other heterosexuals to eventually date or marry. Hopefully, the homosexual children won't either. And this might be perhaps the greatest (and more realistic) potential of any nation-building project such as this: to create a country where all people are treated equally and respectfully, so that no one feels the need to hide who they are.

That would not be an insignificant achievement, no matter which sexuality ended up in the majority.


Dear Jeff,

thank you for posting your interesting concept in this forum. Whereas it is true that this group's primary interest lies in the creating of a gay state, we appreciate any fresh ideas concerning developing of the global GLBT community as such. It is understood, that the said GLBT state would be only a part of the whole, and a cultural and economic exchange whith the gay and lesbian people from all over the world would be not only appreciated, but a matter of survival. The flow of ideas and cultural achievements would become a very important process for both the "Gay state" and the "Diaspora". The interesting aspect for us is especially, in what way connections to such "colonies" and already existing GLBT structures could be established for mutual benefit and how our proposed state could adopt experiences from other projects.

The second reason why I think it is good that you present your project in our forum is the simple fact that unconvential ideas bring "fresh blood" into discussions. Things, which seem first a bit "unearthy", can turn out to be fertilizing for our project. For example, the future gay settlement which we are considering, would surely start rather as an agrarian settlement than as an artist colony; but your idea of promotion gay culture work can be adopted as well, once the initial phase of the project has passed.

I would like to make some remarks in order to explain why we think that a "Gay state" is actually necessary, notwithstanding the good prospects of the "colonies concept" presented by you. :)

The "self-administrated GLBT settlement or territory" which we are thinking about, should have the legal and physical ability to enable unrestricted immigration of gays and lesbians and allow the same-sex marriage and adoption of partner's children. Though it's true, that in Canada and some countries in Europe and in few states in the US same-sex marriages are allowed, the rest of the world still remains VERY hostile towards homosexual people. Gays in countries with progressive legislation and civil society have no sensible reasons for complaints and feeling oppressed, but unfortunately these countries are also the ones with most restrictive immigration policy. An oppressed homosexual individual has rather but a tiny chance to leave his country and start a new existence in a better place. Indeed, gays and lesbians are even purposefully kept out of borders of a rather liberal country like Australia by a deliberate point system which is giving additional points for the (heterosexual) spouse. Even countries, which give sanctuary to gay/lesbian refugees, are performing very restictive policy against (all) refugees, as most of them are not allowed to work in their profession, if at all; they never get full citizen rights. Therefore a gay state with an immigration policy on its own would be the last chance for many of our brothers and sisters (and those in between, too). But, of course, you have right with your statement about gay rights propagation in countries, where it is possible.

--- Quote from: jemiko on Mon, May 09, 2005, 00:47 --- [...] I have to admit I'm not fully convinced an independent gay nation is either workable or necessary. [..] on the whole, I believe it's in our best interest to remain in our native countries, and to focus on reforming them from within. Central to this is achieving equality for gay people. Since this would effect every gay person on the globe, it will ultimately have more of an impact than starting an independent nation - which at its best can only impact a relatively tiny portion of us. [...] Now for those who seek independence for the sake of independence, I realize that these types of communities won't be enough. And I understand that and respect that. But if the goal is to pursue happiness, freedom, equality AND integration, these are about the best option we have. [...]
I also want to add that I understand not all countries are ready for these types of colonies. I'm sure if one were started in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, it would be wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of days. As our standing grew in the more progressive countries, perhaps we could pressure our governments to make gay rights a foreign relations issue. But in any event, because of this fact, I do think that perhaps some sort of a gay sanctuary could be started. A place where gay refugees from these countries could flee to if necessary. It would not have to be an independent entity. It could be land leased to us by a friendly country or countries. Refugees could be allowed to stay there for a certain amount of time, and then settled in a friendly country - perhaps even in a colony. I say this because if no time limit were set, the sanctuary might fill up fairly quickly. In this way, room is freed for additional refugees.
Perhaps, too, as friendly countries began accepting significant numbers of gay refugees, their governments would become more inclined to pressure other countries to treat their gay citizens better.
--- End quote ---

Your treatment of the "straight kids problem" has initiated a process of considering agreeable solutions for this "problem". Well, the kids as such, with no reference on their later sexuality, are highly welcome and a source of joy to any kind person, their existence in the GLBT communities and in a gay-lesbian state would be rather a win than a problem. As the proposed gay state would hopefully grow through gay immigration, the gay majority would be probably preserved without any further regulation. The problem which I see, is rather of a different nature: what these poor heterosexual kids will do when they discover their own sexuality and will find no adequate partners? This is something which would be a source of discomfort for them and probably drive them to look for a better place in the world, without any pressure or harassment. This would cause their parents and friends certain pain and grief, but this is something what all parents go through, as the kids are generally looking for fortune far away from mama's home. We should keep in mind, that the democratic wealthy world is growing together economically and socially, and the chances for a straight kid to study and work abroad are pretty good. Those who will stay, will be treated heartily and hopefully become "usefull members of society", as all adults expect kids to be. ;D ;D ;D

You see, straight couples in "civilized" countries usually have not more than 2 children, and lesbian women are not always inclined to get pregnant as well, therefore I do not think there ever would arise a threat of an "overpopulation" through straight minority. As to the name of the country: well, in "Germany" a lot of Turks, Russians and other nationalities live peacefully side by side with the Germans and not a single one came to the idea to rename the country... As far as we would understand our people to be a "nation", the straights shall accept it, especially as they would be taught at school, why the creation of a country became necessary in this form.

--- Quote from: jemiko on Mon, May 09, 2005, 00:47 --- [...] I have to admit I'm not fully convinced an independent gay nation is either workable or necessary. For instance, it would be impossible to sustain without either limiting or excluding children. In a colony, for example, once children reach adulthood, most would probably move to another town or city. This is normal, since few of us remain in the same location we were born in. This would leave the original colony with roughly the same demographic makeup. In an independent state, however, even if grown children moved away from their home town, they would still remain within that nation's borders; thereby effecting its overall demographics. Now I'm not saying I would want non-gay children to move away from either colony or nation, but unless they emigrated from the latter (and in massive numbers) they would inevitably come to form the majority - or at the very least, a very large minority. Which brings up a further point; namely, how could one label a country which consists of homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals a ?gay' nation; especially without the non-gay inhabitants feeling somewhat agitated by this; and eventually, and rightfully, demanding that such a label be dropped? [...]
--- End quote ---

Honestly, the problem what I see is of a different nature: how will the queer kids find their way to the gay country? The gay colonies which you are proposing, would be an ideal place for them to come into contact with gay sub-culture and find an appropriate partner and friends. Indeed, such colonies could become a kind of "recruitment centers" for our gay state! ;D ;D ;D

Hi Gunnar, I read your post with great interest. I would say though, from some of your comments, that I don't think my message is quite getting through. I'm probably not writing it as clearly as I should; I know all this stuff is a lot to cover in a message post. I think part of the misunderstanding may be confusion over the word ‘colony.' You, for example, have apparently interpreted colony to mean an agrarian colony, filled primarily, I imagine, with farmers. There might be great merit in an agrarian colony, but it's not what I'm suggesting.

It's because of other misunderstandings that I've encountered in the past, that I've been trying to veer away from the ‘colony' term; and replace it with community; which seems to more closely resemble my idea.

I don't want to be repetitive here, but I need to state once again that the communities I'm proposing would not be - nor would they aspire to become - independent entities. They would, in time, more likely become incorporated towns. They would have jurisdiction over most events within their borders; but not all. If the inhabitants desired to have immediate rights to gay marriage, these communities could always be started in a location that recognizes gay marriage: such as Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. As far as the social security issue you brought up; folks in these communities would still be citizens of their state and nation; they would still be paying state and federal taxes, and so would be eligible for social security.

The overarching idea is to continue working for gay rights in all nations. My personal opinion, and it may very well differ from yours, is that the best way to achieve gay equality is to remain in our native countries and continue fighting for these rights. How would moving away help improve the nations we'd be moving from? And since this is where the vast majority of gay people live, that is where the main focus should be. That, however, doesn't mean that all gay people have to remain in their native lands. A gay-based nation can certainly be pursued, but I just don't think it should be expected to do a whole heck of a lot as far as improving the lives of most gay people. These colonies, on the other hand, by remaining integrated within their borders, as well as integrated with the surrounding communities, could serve as ideal models of how a community should treat all its citizens. You need to remember, these colonies would not be existing in a vacuum. Media coverage would probably be fairly high. It would be the most public platform we've ever had.

As for the economic details of the communities, as I've written before a significant portion would be open to investors and entrepreneurs. They would provide much of the job opportunities in the community. The corporation, meanwhile, would be focusing on setting up the gay social and cultural venues. Public service areas would most likely be overseen by the elected community legislative body, who would, I imagine, hire qualified people to run the various things: schools, police dept., fire dept., etc. This would be paid for the way any community pays for such things: through community taxes. The corporation might be able to help out to a degree, but it's best for the community to be as economically self-sufficient as it can be. This would free more corporate resources for the purchase of additional land.

I also wanted to clarify another point. I do not visualize these communities as artist colonies. I merely meant that since the corporation would be focusing on gay culture, artistic people would most likely make up the largest part of the initial inhabitants. But the community would certainly diversify far beyond this.

In your post you asked who would feed the artists. My answer is the artists would feed themselves. This is not a charity colony I'm proposing. The corporation would help provide encouragement, development, and promotion for gay creators; it would help provide them with a potential audience; but in the end the artists will have to be talented enough to make a living on their own. This project would simply make it easier for them to do that.

You see, these communities would be fundamentally gay hubs, or cultural centers. And as more were started they would form a network of hubs. Every major city has a significant gay population as well, and these would form additional hubs in the network. A gay band, for example, could then schedule a tour with these colony and city hubs as gigs; knowing they'd have a more welcome audience. Gay film makers could use this network to assure their films get a more widely distributed screening. And of course, every other creative field as well could take advantage of this network.

And I'm not saying that only this network could be used; it's meant as a foundation, not the entire spectrum. It would be an ideal way for the best - or at least the most popular - gay creations to rise to the top; and these more popular items would have a better chance of crossing over into the mainstream. And that is where the change in heterosexual attitudes will begin to accelerate. As I mentioned in a previous post, it would be a mistake to underestimate the power of art and entertainment to change people. In fact, I would say it's absolutely essential.

But it's got to be quality; and it's got to be easily accessible. I am absolutely confident that if given the opportunity, there would be fair-minded heterosexuals who would travel to a nearby colony to see one of these films, or catch one of these plays. Or just walk around, get a bite to eat, and check out the sights.
Diversity is very stimulating. And a lot of heterosexuals truly want to understand us.

By the way, I hear what you're saying about the intolerance of some gay people. I suspect this is due in some degree to insecurity. For instance, for years I would hear gay people disparaging heterosexuals as ‘breeders.' Some gays still use this term. I always thought this was ridiculous. Procreation is the creation of life. It's a miracle. What is there to disparage about it? Nothing. We don't really disparage procreation, we envy it. And because of our insecurity, that envy takes the form of hostility.

It all ties in with being under-developed. Right now we're focused on the political, on equal rights; and that makes it seem more important. But it really isn't. Until we start addressing our cultural and social under-development, we will remain (in general) an envious and incomplete people. And, I would add, in far too many cases, a lost people.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version