New York is a peculiar example because the estimates of its Gay population vary so widely, as does the definition of "New York" (some demographers simply refuse to believe the city's boundaries have importance). The most conservative figures suggest that Gays make up between 3.25% and 4.5% of the city. Considering the national average for the US is 4.1%, this suggests to me that either the more conservative figures are grossly inadequate or that New York just isn't all that Gay... despite it's millions of inhabitants. Certainly if you could persuade even half of the Gays in New York City to leave in favor of just about any other city in the US they would find their influence considerably magnified.
If political control, rather than influence, is the objective, migration to large cities is about the very best way to guarantee failure.
Thats interesting. I didn't know that detail about the demographies of NY.
I think we all agree that cities are the best way to guarantee failure. Essentially if you look at the evolution of cities from the beginning of the industrial revolution they have often been migrations of displaced disempowered people to often to equally or even more acutely disempowering settings.
So the discussion on this thread seems to have reached that a rural option would be the most viable and there seems to still be debate about whether or not to aim for an island or inland. I'm still undecided but there are some clear benefits and failings of each option.
To a certain extent it doesn't matter it just needs to be started in the best possible setting available now.