GLR News and Information > Geography, Economy & GLR Politics

Gay Legislation

(1/4) > >>

Frozen19:
Well, in my personal opinion I feel that a balance can be achieved between freedoms and needs.  The private sector should be left alone; same with food.  Education, fire departments, basic health coverage, electricity, water, and waste managent should be socialized in order to ensure the well being of the populace and so that the country wont turn out like corporate controlled US. *Shivers* Initially of course the above shouldn't be considered till after a stable society is formed.  tbc...  :)

Feral:
No worries... I value your contribution no matter how many letters at a time you can enter.

For myself, socializing anything is a drastic step -- one that may well be inferior to other options. I tend to be pretty conservative on that score.

Some things, however, are required of a civil society. We institute governments to secure those things. I would definitely put water among those things. I'm inclined to put electricity among the basic services that ought to be provided to all as well.

The question that remains is how much water and how much electricity? I would agree that the citizens of a country had an inherent right to food as well, but I'm not sure you have the right to cake... even though I'm very fond of cake. Health care is a similar issue. Yes... some level of health care is the natural right of every citizen.

On each of these issues, even each aspect of each of these issues, you will find twenty contrary opinions to any proposal that might be suggested. It is a matter for discussion, for the democratic process. There are advocates for free market solutions to all of these problems, just as there are advocates for socializing both national resources and basic services. I lean toward the second of those options.

The entire matter is complicated by underlying reality. If there is no water, it does not matter that you ought to have the right to water. If there are no doctors, it does not matter that you ought to have health care. This is one of the reasons I advocate a ground-up approach to nationalism instead of a top-down approach. If you are a doctor, and if the Gay people have a right to health care, then begin providing it... now, where you are. If you are not a doctor, and if the Gay people still have a right to health care, then study to become one... begin at once. If there are services that the Gay people need, then they need them now, not at some point in the future when it is convenient and not after some state has been founded somewhere for them to emigrate to.

There are a whole host of services I think the Gay people have the obligation to provide to each other... because the Gay people have the right to receive them. I'm not so sure many people would be comfortable with the length of that list if someone like me were "in charge." Do you really want me deciding what you will and will not do for others? Fortunately, all I can do is suggest.

Frozen19:
Ok I understand where your coming from. I am sorry if anything I said was a tad vague or abrupt. You see I am using a PSP to access the forum and can only enter so many letters at a time. Basically everything I post is typically condensed.
Before I forget whats your take on socializing resources and services like water, electricity, and health care?

Mogul:
Any state can regulate its immigration and visa policy in the way it deems suitable. A mailtreatment of straight people on Gay soil would certainly give reason for international unease, but exclusion of them from Gay territory? This would be a rather unusual approach to the international law. No straight citizens, no oppression, no problems. After all, it's not like straight people don't have their own countries which are much larger in size and richer in opportunities [for them].


--- Quote from: Frozen19 on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 01:57 ---I feel it is wrong to exclude straights from the republic.
--- End quote ---

This would depend on what exactly one means with "exclude" and "wrong" towards whom. Are we talking about exclusion of straight tourists, straight season workers, straight residents, or straight citizens? Would it be wrong towards straight people to refuse entry to the Gay state, or would it be wrong towards Gay citizens to refuse entry to their family members? These are separate issues which imply very different consequences.

I would agree that indeed a general "no-straights-on-Gay-soil" policy would be rather counterproductive. Straight visitors shall be welcome, and straight specialists shall be always invited for work if needed. Gay citizens also should have the possibility to bring their immediate dependents with them - straight or Gay shall be no issue in such cases.

However, it should be clear, too, that all those friendly straight people will not become citizens of the republic -- they will remain guests living there as foreigners with a residency permission. The residency permission does not include such political privilegies as the right to vote or be elected into an office. 

----
Btw, the "no-women-no-kids" policy isn't really a novelty...

Feral:

--- Quote from: Frozen19 on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 01:57 ---I feel it is wrong to exclude straights from the republic.
Reasons:
1 Can result in obvious aggresion from tolerant nations
2 Can scare away possible immigrants who have gay supportive family and friends
3 Gay parents would not immigrate in order to stay w/ children
4 Uneeded tension in political alliances
5 Over time can lead to mass hysteria  and fear towards straight indiduals
I might mention that a bicameral legislature of which one section is purely glbt can prevent the loss of gay control in govt.

--- End quote ---

Interesting points.

1 I think too much energy can be spent in fantasizing ways to minimize aggression. Any nation has the obligation to manage it's immigration policy in a manner consistent with the public good. It would be foolish to fail to exclude persons with criminal and antisocial backgrounds, regardless of their orientation.

2 Personally, I would never support an effort to exclude Gay supportive family members solely on the basis of their orientation. Gay supportive is Gay supportive. The issue of 'friends' is debatable. If these people are such good friends and so supportive, then I am quite happy to suggest that some Gay person adopt them as family members.

3 So long as these children are not criminals, there is no moral reason to prohibit a person from immigrating because they have children, or to prohibit the children from entering the country.

4 Tension? Oh, I think there would inevitably be at least tension. Tension is never 'needed,' but sometimes it has to be acknowledged before progress can be made in reducing it.

5 I've not noted any marked inclination toward this phenomenon in Gay people. To the contrary, the opposite seems to be the prevailing condition.

Your point is taken about the legislature. You are quite right.

I would add one other... time after time, whether it is a Gay bar that freely admits all customers regardless of orientation or a Gay sporting league that freely admits all participants regardless of orientation, the simple act of affirming the desirability of Gay participation is sufficient to provoke straight people from wanting to be involved.

This Straight vs Gay thing does not come from us. There is no point in trying to defuse it from our side of the equation: we do not have the power to remove situations that are not of our making.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page