GLR Forum
General Forum => Politics => Topic started by: Feral on Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 04:37
-
What exactly does the word "Gay" mean, anyway? For many it is simply a euphemism for "homosexual," a word that, for no apparent reason, lacks the sting of the more clinical terminology. One might, if pressed, trace the origins of this usage to British Palare slang. Indeed, a remarkable number of Palare words seemed to have seeped into common English usage. So today everyone knows that "gay" means "homosexual" just as everyone knows what is meant by checking one's "basket." This is the common, everyday use of the word, but not too long ago it meant something rather different.
In 1981 Michael Denneny wrote an essay entitled "Gay Politics: Sixteen Propositions." Originally published in the magazine Christopher Street, it was later re-published in the Christopher Street Reader (a book which can often be found quite inexpensively at second-hand book dealers).
Denneny's first proposition is as follows: "Homosexuality and gay are not the same thing: gay is when you decide to make an issue of it."
In other words, there are men (perhaps you have encountered one or two of them) for whom what they do in bed is quite secondary, even irrelevant, to who they are as a person. These are men who happen to be homosexuals. There are also men (I happily count myself among them) for whom being being gay is a defining, central part of their identities. They are gay men, not men who are gay. Denneny put it this way:
"Whether or not being gay is a central part of one’s identity — one’s felt sense of self in everyday life, who I am — is not a theoretical question. It is a fact and can be ascertained by fairly elemental self-reflection. There are Jews for whom that fact is an accident of birth and nothing more; blacks for whom the most monstrous aspect of racism is its bewildering irrelevance to who they are. But there are also gays, Jews, and blacks who know themselves as this particular gay man, this particular Jew, this particular black. Such people experience their humanness through being gay, Jewish, or black; they do not experience their humanity apart from its concrete manifestation in the world. The following analogy can illustrate, not prove, this position: one can be an athlete through being a pole-vaulter, football player, or swimmer; one cannot be simply an athlete without taking part in some sport."
"One can argue about whether one should gain a significant part of one’s identity in this way; whether one actually does, however, is a fact. Facts, of course, can change. Eight years ago I did not experience myself primarily as a gay man; today, if I spend more than four days in a totally straight environment, I feel like climbing the walls. I experience myself as a fish out of water, as a “homosexual alien,” in the words of the Immigration Service."
-
The word "gai" (gay in English,same meaning as in French) was apparently in use and in its current acceptance (for us) in the 17th century and
in France.
K6
-
I was completely unaware of that, K6. Thankyou. That would tend to contradict the bizarre notion that gays, in the sense of a gay identity, did not exist prior to the twentieth century.
-
I was completely unaware of that, K6. Thankyou. That would tend to contradict the bizarre notion that gays, in the sense of a gay identity, did not exist prior to the twentieth century.
A gay identity prior to the 20th century ? Would be difficult to confirm.But I think that it existed,only that it left little or no trace.Probably the
same with the idea of a gay country,which could have appeared at the same time the concept of the nation-state became an accepted geopolitical idea among heterosexuals.The word gay is now,as far as I know,used and understood worldwide,with slight variations in writing or pronunciation.In Poland,for example,they say "gej" (pronounce geh-i).
K6
-
Karel Ulrichs (1825-1895) & Karel Benkert (1824-1882) (http://www.gay-news.com/article04.php?sid=112):
Yet it isn`t more than one hundred fifty years ago the very first proud gay in the heart of Europe was known by name and nickname. The credit for this goes to the German Karel Ulrichs (1825-1895). The word homosexuality hadn`t been coined yet. Men doing it with men were simply pederasts, sodomites or queers. Ulrichs was just such a sodomite. He loved men and liked getting it up the ass. And precisely that was punishable in Prussia. That`s why he fabricated his own coming out at 37. Instead of remaining a secret sodomite, from 1862 on he began to call himself openly a Uranian, a person of the third gender". He came up with these new names to describe men with a male body but of feminine character.
In August 1865 Ulrichs considered it was time for an emancipation society for equal rights, the Society of Uranians. It didn`t get past an attempt. So in 1867 on his own he attended the yearly meeting of the German lawyers union in Munich with an open protest against Uranians discrimination. The attempt failed and he landed in jail for a couple of months. Nevertheless Karel Ulrichs is the first who told the world loud and clear he was a Uranian, that he was of sound masculine ànd feminine character and abone all considered this completely normal. Karel Ulrichs was such a loud proud Uranian, that a contemporary of his, Karel Benkert (1824-1882) didn`t dare call himself one. The eternal bachelor Benkert prefered to stay anonymous (he even changed his last name to Kertbeny), didn`t want to have anything to do with effeminate men (on the day he died his lips were still sealed when it came to his own sex life) and thought a separate third gender" was nonsense (he thought himself completely normal). Kertneby would rather be caught dead than call himself a Uranian and in his turn came up with his own terminology.
So on Wednesday May 6, 1868, as the first man ever, Karel Kertbeny wrote down the words homosexual" and heterosexual" in an anonymous letter to Karel Ulrichs. Today the word homosexual is 132 years old and has been invented by a secret queen who came up with it so as not to have to belong to those Uranians, a bit like calling yourself gay these days.
-
To my knowledge, Ulrichs was the first to consider us really as a kind of a race, the "third sex". He has created an elaborated theory dealing with the various types of Urnings, as he has discovered that there were not only the effiminate ones, but also macho ones and some in between. It is remarkable that this man was able to make some reasonable conclusions at that time, as he certainly didn't have the possibility to make systematic research à la Kinsey.
But although ancient Greeks didn't generally categorize their fellow citizens because of their sexual preferences, they certainly were aware that sexual behaviour isn't just a matter of choice, but rather a matter of one's inner nature. For example, in the often-quoted "Symposium" Plato lets Aristophanes contribute the following passage to the discussion:
"Aristophanes is the next speaker:--
He professes to open a new vein of discourse, in which he begins by treating of the origin of human nature. The sexes were originally three,
men, women, and the union of the two; and they were made round--having four hands, four feet, two faces on a round neck, and the rest to correspond. Terrible was their strength and swiftness; and they were essaying to scale heaven and attack the gods. Doubt reigned in the celestial councils; the gods were divided between the desire of quelling the pride of man and the fear of losing the sacrifices. At last Zeus hit upon an expedient. Let us cut them in two, he said; then they will only have half their strength, and we shall have twice as many sacrifices. He spake, and split them as you might split an egg with an hair; and when this was done, he told Apollo to give their faces a twist and re-arrange their persons, taking out the wrinkles and tying the skin in a knot about the navel. The two halves went about looking for one another, and were ready to die of hunger in one another's arms. Then Zeus invented an adjustment of the sexes, which enabled them to marry and go their way to the business of life. Now the characters of men differ accordingly as they are derived from the original man or the original woman, or the original man-woman. Those who come from the man-woman are lascivious and adulterous; those who come from the woman form female attachments; those who are a section of the male follow the male and embrace him, and in him all their desires centre. The pair are inseparable and live together in pure and manly affection; yet they cannot tell what they want of one another. But if Hephaestus were to come to them with his instruments and propose that they should be melted into one and remain one here and hereafter, they would acknowledge that this was the very expression of their want. For love is the desire of the whole, and the pursuit of the whole is called love. There was a time when the two sexes were only one, but now God has halved them,--much as the Lacedaemonians have cut up the Arcadians,--and if they do not behave themselves he will divide them again, and they will hop about with half a nose and face in basso relievo. Wherefore let us exhort all men to piety, that we may obtain the goods of which love is the author, and be reconciled to God, and find our own true loves, which rarely happens in this world. And now I must beg you not to suppose that I am alluding to Pausanias and Agathon (compare Protag.), for my words refer to all mankind everywhere."
We must of course clearly separate between the human behaviour and human identity. I agree with Mr. Denneny's theses in this point wholly. Only by coming out a homosexual individual regains his/hers dignity as a person. Being "gay" is ideed about one's identity, whereas "men fucking men" are homosexuals trying to "pass" for straights. How much self-hatred and inferiority complexes must be withinn a poor homosexual soul, who regards the words "straight" or "straight-looking" as a compliment? Ugly ducklings they are, alltogether! :=SU
("Symposium": http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1600 )
P.S. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was encarcerated in Minden because of his resistance against Prussian annexion of Hannover, not because of same-sex love. >:)
-
We must of course clearly separate between the human behaviour and human identity. I agree with Mr. Denneny's theses in this point wholly. Only by coming out a homosexual individual regains his/hers dignity as a person. Being "gay" is indeed about one's identity, whereas "men fucking men" are homosexuals trying to "pass" for straights. How much self-hatred and inferiority complexes must be withinn a poor homosexual soul, who regards the words "straight" or "straight-looking" as a compliment? Ugly ducklings they are, alltogether!
Well said, Vicky. Although I think Mr. Denneny's first proposition is indisputable (indeed, I agree with 99% of Denneny's essay), it is necessary to acknowledge his peculiar use of the word "gay", even if one will not agree with it. Denneny's political analysis does not concern itself with persons who engage in homosexual behaviors. His gay politics pertains to persons who identify themselves as gay.
While homosexuals trying to pass for straights are not gays according to Denneny's usage of the word, identification is a transient thing -- an act of will. These persons exclude themselves from the gay people by not identifying as gay. They can, of course, end this exclusion through a simple declaration.
-
While homosexuals trying to pass for straights are not gays according to Denneny's usage of the word, identification is a transient thing -- an act of will. These persons exclude themselves from the gay people by not identifying as gay. They can, of course, end this exclusion through a simple declaration.
Some people with homosexual interests - even in a certain number of cases claiming to be gay - could nevertheless not be regarded as such.
Because these homosexual interests of theirs are merely peripheral,and associated only with recreational purposes.Comes a situation of tension which forces them to choose between the recreation and the more earthly things acquired by way of the heterosexual privilege,they will discard the recreational before they do the same with interests which to them sound more real socialy,materialy,if not financialy.And they could prove more zealous if not vicious in the defense of an heterosexual interest to which they have reasons to believe they are not entirely part of,owing to their part time homosexual behavior.
K6
-
As the commomplace goes: words mean things. And while connotation generally operates within a narrow band surrounding 'meaning,' just where within that connoted territory any particular person's understanding shall plant its flag will, of course, vary-- regardless of the author's skill. Seeing as how we are speaking of the word 'gay' in a political context here, I agree with Denneny that it is then, of vital importance just what we mean by 'gay.' That definition is not quibbling over semantics, nor is it solely (or even chiefly) an exclusionary exercise in Identity Politics.
I would argue that the definition becomes more important as we gay folks gain civil rights that closer approximate those of our str8 cousins, not less. We are compelled to consider where the lines truly are. For example, it was once widely held by a great many real, live Gay people that to ape the monogamous relationships of str8s was itself, inherently non-gay. It was a practice that was even thought by some to be at least mildly 'anti-gay.' I think most will agree that stance has changed over the years, but is it still 'more gay' to have open relationships? I'd argue that it's not, but I don't entirely dismiss those who find that it is. And what about adopting kids? Yes, of course, we should have every right to do so, but if we go ahead and do it, are we foreswearing part of the Gay Identity? So then, taken to its logical end, the question ineluctably frames itself this way: how much of what we see as the unique Gay Identity may be thusly foresworn before, oops, a Gay man has degraded into a 'homosexual' in Denneny's schema.
To complicate matters further, there is a generational divide on these questions. While those of us in our 30s and 40s seem perfectly happy to reframe US Supreme Court Mr. Justice Stewart's definition of obscenity to fit 'gaiety'-- that is, "... I know it when I see it...." (http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html) -- those younger people just now entering the community seem to perceive a far broader 'band of connotation' sourrounding the meaning of the word 'Gay' than was common hitherto. I don't think we can begrudge them that: The shift comes necessarily and not just from the passage of time, or some ahistorical understanding on the part of the kids, but also from the broader range of experiences of Gay people nowadays. Those of us who are 'of a certain age' usually cannot point to any of our peers and say that they came out in high school to little familial or social drama. Some kids now -- the lucky little bastards ;) -- do actually accomplish that. It's no surprise then that they expect more leeway in this whole 'Gay' thing.
So the question for us middle-aged Gay people becomes whether or not we want being Gay to matter, even for the youngsters. The Assimilationists would have it that victory has been achieved when nobody cares whether or not you're Gay. Those of us who hold any view other than the assimilationist one... well, we'd have to call that goal one that actively seeks cultural genocide, wouldn't we? Winning can be a real bitch, can't it?
-
As the commomplace goes: words mean things. And while connotation generally operates within a narrow band surrounding 'meaning,' just where within that connoted territory any particular person's understanding shall plant its flag will, of course, vary-- regardless of the author's skill. Seeing as how we are speaking of the word 'gay' in a political context here, I agree with Denneny that it is then, of vital importance just what we mean by 'gay.'
One of the first acts of a country which becomes independent consists in defining who are its citizens.Outside any State structure,a human group can do the same.The formal definition of a gay person I am been myself using for many years and in the context of a micronational geopolitical structure reads as follows:
"Is to be regarded as gay anyone who displays exclusive or predominant homosexual tendencies" (art.71 of the Code of the Gay Parallel Republic)
"Is not to be regarded as gay in the sense of the present code the individual who has a descendance whereas it is not demonstrated or obvious
that such a descendance was acquired outside the practice of heterosexuality" (art.72 of the above mentionned code)
"Homosexuality does not encompasses the wearing or the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex,nor the will or the desire to belong to
that sex" (art.25 of the above mentionned code)
K6
-
I would argue that the definition becomes more important as we gay folks gain civil rights that closer approximate those of our str8 cousins, not less. We are compelled to consider where the lines truly are. For example, it was once widely held by a great many real, live Gay people that to ape the monogamous relationships of str8s was itself, inherently non-gay.
Monogamy and marriage (where it exists for gays) will fit us as a saddle would fit to a cow.But they won`t jeopardize our identity.All the more
that most gays won`t adhere to either anyway.Much the same way heterosexuals themselves aren`t really monogamous.And in my part of the
world,a slight majority of heterosexuals no longer marry.Gays should normally follow such modern trends,towards the abolition or marriage rather than towards its extension to gays.Irrespective of my sexual orientation - I am a Kinsey 6 gay male - I always considered monogamy and marriage as ridiculous and hypocritical.
K6
-
Kinsey Scale: http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html
One of the first acts of a country which becomes independent consists in defining who are its citizens.Outside any State structure,a human group can do the same.The formal definition of a gay person I am been myself using for many years and in the context of a micronational geopolitical structure reads as follows:
"Is to be regarded as gay anyone who displays exclusive or predominant homosexual tendencies" (art.71 of the Code of the Gay Parallel Republic)
"Is not to be regarded as gay in the sense of the present code the individual who has a descendance whereas it is not demonstrated or obvious that such a descendance was acquired outside the practice of heterosexuality" (art.72 of the above mentionned code)
"Homosexuality does not encompasses the wearing or the displaying of attributes of the opposite sex,nor the will or the desire to belong to that sex" (art.25 of the above mentionned code)
[..] We are compelled to consider where the lines truly are. [..] So then, taken to its logical end, the question ineluctably frames itself this way: how much of what we see as the unique Gay Identity may be thusly foresworn before, oops, a Gay man has degraded into a 'homosexual' in Denneny's schema.
I think, the Queer People exists as such independently from any attempts to establish criterions about what it is. Whereas we might argue about certain traits and practices to be more or less desireable for gay individuals or the gay community, we must recognize that this people already exists and is pretty diverse. As it would be foolish to attempt to determine who is e.g. anthropologically an Italian by physical measurements, it's an ungracefull enterprise to draw the border line around the diffuse Queer People by detailed examination of daily habits, promisquity, political views etc.
"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects [..]. While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." Kinsey, et al. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male"
We must accept that by the very nature of the issue, it is not possible to undisputably separate the gays from non-gays per definition – this does not work this way. However, when being forced to establish criterions for becoming a citizen of a gay state, we are free to set the definition as it would suit us and our fellow citizens the best. The only thing we must be aware of is that such criterions are indeed arbitrary and would either exclude much of the Queer People out of becoming citizens, or include certain amount of people, whos "queerness" might be rightfully questioned. The affiliates of the gay state would will be only a part of the Queer People. The prize question is now, what should then our basic state goals be and how tight or wide we shall draw the circle of citizenship requirements around Kinsey-6 then?
0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual
I would suggest that we should less concentrate on the question "Who is gay?" but rather on the question "Who is gay enough?" In that respect I would suggest that the following 4 criterions are required and sufficient to certify a person as qualified for becoming gay citizen:
1) Emotionally exclusively or predominantly homosexual (Kinsey-4 to 6),
2) Physically exclusively or predominantly homosexual (Kinsey-5 to 6),
3) Acknowledging queer/gay/lesbian identity as a distinctive part of own personality,
4) Accepting the constitution of the souvereign entity as binding for his/her behaviour.
By introducing a detailed work of further limitations we might come to the less joyfull result, the the most gays fail to meet the qualification criterions. I for my part would invariably miss the criterion of stately prescribed promisquity and lax morals. =))
We also must acknowledge, that there will be a considerable amount of people, who couldn't be regarded as proud homosexuals (instead being frightened, unhappy and maybe mentally cracked), but who still belong to our race and for who we shall feel certain responsibility as well.
[..] To complicate matters further, there is a generational divide on these questions. [..] those younger people just now entering the community seem to perceive a far broader 'band of connotation' sourrounding the meaning of the word 'Gay' than was common hitherto. I don't think we can begrudge them that: The shift comes necessarily and not just from the passage of time, or some ahistorical understanding on the part of the kids, but also from the broader range of experiences of Gay people nowadays. Those of us who are 'of a certain age' usually cannot point to any of our peers and say that they came out in high school to little familial or social drama. Some kids now -- the lucky little bastards ;) -- do actually accomplish that. It's no surprise then that they expect more leeway in this whole 'Gay' thing.
There was also an interesting article published in TIMES Magazine ("The Battle Over Gay Teens", Oct. 10, 2005): http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1112856,00.html
Well, it might be also a phenomenon related to the youth as such. With 20, the world rotates mostly about less phylosophical questions than with 40, I guess. When I was 20, I also regarded my being gay solely as a matter of diviant "bed" preferences – now with 33 I know better. Similarly, the today youth will, no doubt, make their experiences and decide whether being gay is an important issue or not.
I would argue that the definition becomes more important as we gay folks gain civil rights that closer approximate those of our str8 cousins, not less. [..] The Assimilationists would have it that victory has been achieved when nobody cares whether or not you're Gay. Those of us who hold any view other than the assimilationist one... well, we'd have to call that goal one that actively seeks cultural genocide, wouldn't we? Winning can be a real bitch, can't it?
K.T., must you be that explicite? Of course it is easier to be nationalistic if the majority permanently opresses you – but it is possible to maintain one's culture also in good times. We only must be aware of our history and of our culture. Even if the majority of gay population would "assimilate" (= commit cultural suicide), there will be still some gays thinking differently and holding the torch of gay culture through time and space… However, I can't deny that some moderate oppression is very favorable for the separationist/separatist movement.
-
The prize question is now, what should then our basic state goals be and how tight or wide we shall draw the circle of citizenship requirements around Kinsey-6 then?
The Kinsey 6 - or the exclusively homosexual - cannot be denied the status of gay.The other individuals are to be assessed on a basis of predominance of one tendency or another,and on what they display and which is observable in terms of behavior.In other words,the deeds
of an individual determine his status.He may also have feelings,but they do not count if they do not translate into observable behavior,or if they are contradicted by his actions.The minimal in terms of deeds is not necessarily the sexual act itself: outward tendencies should be enough to assess an individual as gay.For example and for a guy,always looking at other guys and paying no attention to women should be grounds enough to regard him as gay.
K6
-
K.T., must you be that explicite? Of course it is easier to be nationalistic if the majority permanently opresses you – but it is possible to maintain one's culture also in good times. We only must be aware of our history and of our culture. Even if the majority of gay population would "assimilate" (= commit cultural suicide), there will be still some gays thinking differently and holding the torch of gay culture through time and space… However, I can't deny that some moderate oppression is very favorable for the separationist/separatist movement.
Is it possible to preserve a diasporatic (if that's not a word, it should be) culture absent external oppression? I'm not sure that is, perhaps because I can't think of a historical example. The usual diasporatic exemplars, Jews, the Roma, the Druze, etc. have all of them faced some sort nearly constant outside pressure, and in reaction have stubbornly maintained themselves as a people. In those circumstances where they have been allowed to nearly fully assimilate, and been simultaneously thusly inclined, there certainly has been hue and cry from their leaders about the passing away of the culture. I'm not sure that apostasy need necessarily lead to agnosis, but it is certainly a possible outcome, don't you find?
-
It is important that gays fight the assimilation, wherever possible. They should make clear to themselves and to the friendly straights around them, what the assimilation is about. As long as straights themselves are not ready for truly integration (who can be blamed for his nature, anyway?) - we must fight all these snaky and well-meant attempted assimilation and preserve our own culture by all means.
:=SU
An objective analysis based on power politics would illustrate that we gays will end up as loosers in any policy of integration.Our sexual orientation is only recreational.Whereas the heterosexuals`s sexual orientation,though having all the outward appearances of recreation,also has to do with reproductive biology,with demographics,with shaping the future this entails,and ultimately with politics.Our sexual orientation confers us no such power,whereas the sexual orientation of the heterosexuals confers them for all practical purpose all the power,never mind the formal legalistic details.With no control over demography,not even a normal moral and political authority over our gay youth,we cannot be the equals of the heterosexuals.
K6
-
An objective analysis based on power politics would illustrate that we gays will end up as loosers in any policy of integration.Our sexual orientation is only recreational.Whereas the heterosexuals`s sexual orientation,though having all the outward appearances of recreation,also has to do with reproductive biology,with demographics,with shaping the future this entails,and ultimately with politics.Our sexual orientation confers us no such power,whereas the sexual orientation of the heterosexuals confers them for all practical purpose all the power,never mind the formal legalistic details.With no control over demography,not even a normal moral and political authority over our gay youth,we cannot be the equals of the heterosexuals.
K6
Greetings to everyone:
I would just like to note, if I may, my disagreement with the above statement. While it is obviously true that children cannot be produced through gay sexual intercourse, this does not mean that gay people cannot produce biological children amongst themselves. Just 15 years ago or so gay marriage was largely deemed as a far-fetched and unrealistic notion. In some gay quarters, even undesirable. Today it can be more clearly viewed as what it truly is: another stage in the social development of homosexuals as a people.
It will hardly be the final stage. In fact, the succeeding stage is already occurring - though in a still relatively minor way. This is gay procreation. Whether it be through artificial insemination or natural insemination, whether it be a single parent, a gay couple, a pairing of gay couples (the ‘super-family') or some other family arrangement, it is happening. Every indication is this phenomenon will continue to grow, and that similar to gay marriage, support (and involvement) in gay procreation will continue to expand. This is for the simple reason that child-rearing is not a heterosexual impulse, but a human impulse. Certainly not an impulse that is shared by 100% of the population (not even 100% of the heterosexual population) but one that is shared by most people - particularly as one approaches or reaches middle age and one's priorities in life begin to change.
This development will radically alter who we are as individuals, and therefore, who we are as a people. Old definitions (or limitations) of what homosexuality is or can be, will become obsolete. This will disarm many of our most vocal critics: after all, one can't long argue that homosexuality is a ‘sterile' lifestyle when significant amounts of homosexuals are having biological children together.
But there is more to it than that. Currently, no one knows for sure the reasons some children grow up to be gay. The leading theories are that it is either due to ‘nature' or ‘nurture', or some combination of these two. Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring. While this is by no means assured, it seems logical. After all, you'd have the combination of genes from 2 gay parents (the nature element) who'd be raising the children in a gay-parental atmosphere (the nurture element). As more gay people discover the joys of child-rearing, slowly, but surely, this will begin to raise the percentage of non-heterosexuals in the overall population. If these past millennia had been spent in gay procreation rather than hiding away in the closet, our situation today might be vastly different. While we can do nothing to change the past, we can do plenty to change the present - and through it, the future.
But as I've written before, even if no increase in the percentage of gay offspring occurs, the children of gay parents would nearly all be more respectful and understanding of homosexuals and homosexual relationships. Many gay offspring in these families will be inspired to have biological children of their own; further increasing the pace of gay procreation - and acceptance.
In the end, what is important is not the sexuality of the offspring, but that equal treatment and respect be granted to all people - regardless of their sexuality. A greater percentage of gay people would be nice, however, to help counter the overwhelming cultural dominance of heterosexuals.
Procreation is Nature's way of keeping the sexualities integrated - despite the attempts by some to keep the sexualities estranged. Which all leads to the following conclusion: given that gay procreation is the next step in gay social development, and that children come in all sexualities, the very concept of a ‘gay' nation becomes as unattainable as that of a ‘straight' nation. It's not just that integration is the best option, it's the only option. At least in any large-scale, significant, productive form. Which doesn't mean we can't have gay-accented communities, neighborhoods, social and cultural venues, vacation sites, even towns to showcase and explore our identity - and govern, to a degree, our own lives. (One should never underestimate the effects a gay-friendly local government can have.)
This, I believe is the future. And to me, it's very bright. Integration will not reduce us to ‘losers' as K6 suggests, it will allow us to become fuller participants in life - and by participating biologically we help produce and shape the next generations. In this case, time is truly on our side.
Jeff
-
First a word on the discussion of Kinsey: It seems to me a moot point where one falls on the Kinsey scale. Denneny only says that 'Gay' is when you 'make an issue of' of your sexual orientation. He doesn't say how much of an issue, nor does he restrict the word 'gay' to describe those who are Kinsey Sixes. In his construation, you need not be an 'Über-gay' to join the club, an nowhere would he have other gay people deciding if you were 'gay enough' to join the club. I agree with that sentiment. I mean to operate otherwise conjures up shades of the bad, old days when you had to suck off the doorman-- to prove that you weren't a cop-- in order to get into a gay bar.
Now then, on to assimilation vs. integration: To my mind, while the two tendencies do come from different directions-- as you so ably point out, Victor-- the destination is the same. And, alas, whether the obfuscation of gay culture comes as a result of one or the other hardly matters a generation on. Our culture would still be gone; I cannot accede to that.
Moving on to K6's view of gay monogamy: It is absolutely true that monogamy in most gay relationships is just about as 'ironclad' as it is in str8 relationships, which is to say not very ironclad at all. But to admit that is not to say that it isn't a worthy aspiration for those relationships wherein both parties seek it. That is, sure, people 'cheat,' but I think the dynamic surrounding 'cheating' is different in a gay relationship than it is in a str8. Or, at least, it ought to be. It is a wise gay couple that clearly apprehends what seems to be the nature of men, and therefore does not promise absolute and everlasting monogamy from first meeting to death. Yes, guys sometimes 'step out,' and as often as not, for str8 people, the action of so doing (and the lies that seem to invariably surround the act) bring about the end of the str8 relationship. I would submit, however, that a smart gay couple, while generally monogamous, has made allowance for the prospect that one or the other partner will 'stray' from time to time. Having made such allowances, there are no lies, and relationship soldiers on. There is no compulsion for gay people to mean the same thing by the word 'monogamy' that str8s do. It is imprecise, but what else can you call a relationship that lasts, say, 25 years, but one wherein each partner 'steps out' two or three times in that stretch of time?
"An objective analysis based on power politics would illustrate that we gays will end up as loosers in any policy of integration.Our sexual orientation is only recreational. Whereas the heterosexuals`s sexual orientation,though having all the outward appearances of recreation,also has to do with reproductive biology,with demographics,with shaping the future this entails,and ultimately with politics"
I must strenuously disagree with the above. If anything, a Gay orientation is more political than a str8 one, if only due to its being in fundamental opposition to the majority. It is not a matter of recreation. Denneny points out later in his essay that, in general, the Nazis did not murder gay people just for being gay. They murdered those caught actually engaging in gay activity. That which gets you killed by monsters can hardly be callled recreation, can it? Was it Pasolini who declared that gay sex was in itself a revolutionary act? If not, someone should have done.
"Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring. While this is by no means assured, it seems logical. After all, you'd have the combination of genes from 2 gay parents (the nature element) who'd be raising the children in a gay-parental atmosphere (the nurture element). As more gay people discover the joys of child-rearing, slowly, but surely, this will begin to raise the percentage of non-heterosexuals in the overall population."
Interestingly, your premise there is the same as that of our enemies. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that's inadvertent, but the fact remains. What our enemies fear is more gay people, and while I understand that the above is explicitly not the old idea of 'gay recruiting,' it is the more-subtle millennial iteration of that old idea, and is used by the bad guys to argue against our being 'allowed' to raise children. Gay people come from str8 parents at a rate that is, as far as research can show, relatively constant across races, nationalities and cultures. There's no reason to think that gay parents would spawn more gay kids.
In the end, what is important is not the sexuality of the offspring, but that equal treatment and respect be granted to all people - regardless of their sexuality. A greater percentage of gay people would be nice, however, to help counter the overwhelming cultural dominance of heterosexuals.
That first sentence is a lovely sentiment, and one I used to share. The second sentence, however, contradicts the first. In my view, equal treatment and respect simply cannot come from immersion in a majoritarian culture. At this point, I am ready to let the str8 people worry about the str8 kids-- at the moment, we have our hands full trying to keep the gay kids from killing themselves (or being killed by str8 kids), before they get a chance to be gay adults. And that effort is a more legitimate one for us.
Procreation is Nature's way of keeping the sexualities integrated - despite the attempts by some to keep the sexualities estranged.
More on that later... I don't quite know where to begin on such a big topic.
-
If anything, a Gay orientation is more political than a str8 one, if only due to its being in fundamental opposition to the majority. It is not a matter of recreation. Denneny points out later in his essay that, in general, the Nazis did not murder gay people just for being gay. They murdered those caught actually engaging in gay activity. That which gets you killed by monsters can hardly be callled recreation, can it? Was it Pasolini who declared that gay sex was in itself a revolutionary act?
At first glance,the gay sexual orientation isn`t political.For its has no demographic and therefore political consequences.A purpose could be sought in the adversity gays encounter and in their opposition to the heterosexual majority.But to me,this is metaphysics.There is no purpose in opposing for the mere pleasure of opposing.The gay sexual orientation does have however and upon reflexion a purpose.Through it,gays renounce any private competence in matters having to do with human reproduction.Incipient in their sexual orientation is the transfer to society and to the State of the competence over demographic activity.An incipient and besides viable gay State would get its human replacements by way of immigration,which is a government function.Such would be the purpose,human and at the same time gay,of a politically independent society of ours.Such would be our contribution to the evolution and progress of mankind,which would justify the reward of political independence in the form of a sovereign gay republic.
K6
-
This, I believe is the future. And to me, it's very bright. Integration will not reduce us to ‘losers' as K6 suggests, it will allow us to become fuller participants in life - and by participating biologically we help produce and shape the next generations. In this case, time is truly on our side.
Jeff
This is valid for only a handfull of countries,whose political regimes could besides change and whose previous gay-friendly policies be reversed.Gays having no State of ther own have also no instrument which could make of such a change a risky and dangerous adventure to hostile non-gays.These are merely formal rights with no basis or guarantee in power politics,legal briefs against potential loaded guns.
K6
-
What our enemies fear is more gay people, and while I understand that the above is explicitly not the old idea of 'gay recruiting,' it is the more-subtle millennial iteration of that old idea, and is used by the bad guys to argue against our being 'allowed' to raise children. Gay people come from str8 parents at a rate that is, as far as research can show, relatively constant across races, nationalities and cultures. There's no reason to think that gay parents would spawn more gay kids.
It's generally true that the rate of gay offspring from two straight biological parents appears to be relatively steady. Although cases involving gay twins and/or siblings suggests there's more to it than an even across-the-board dispersion. What is largely unknown, is what percentage of offspring would be non-heterosexual if the two biological parents were both homosexual. In this case there most certainly would be reason to suspect a possible difference in the sexuality ratio. If there is a genetic link to sexuality (which many believe there is) such a link would reasonably be reflected in a larger number of non-straight offspring. If there is a nurture, or upbringing link to sexuality, then being raised by gay parents who are in a healthy, open loving relationship would again, quite reasonably, lead to the offspring at least being more open to the possibility of their being bisexual or gay. In fact, one study I read about some years back did support this latter occurence. [Just a note: My parental philosophy in a nutshell is that you don't raise a child to be gay, bi, or straight; you raise them to be themselves. You let them know at appropriate times that there are 3 primary forms of love, and that all 3 are valid and will be accepted whichever one the child decides they are.]
I'm certainly no expert in genetics, but one can't simply dismiss the sexuality of the parents as irrelevant to the possible sexuality of their offspring. That seems illogical - and smacks more of political correctness than science. Sexuality is a characteristic. And while some characteristics remain dormant, others are passed on. Perhaps it'll prove to be no difference in percentage at all. Perhaps it'll be only a slight, infinitesimal increase. Or perhaps it will be a larger increase. No one can know at this time. What the average rate turns out to be will not be known until a decade or two down the road when more of these children come of age.
And to clarify myself, I'm referring here to biological children of two gay parents, not adopted children.
As far as others fearing the presence of more gay people (if that's what the result of gay procreation should bring) than what they're really afraid of, or offended by, is nature itself. Which is fundamentally silly, since nature, after all, is amoral. Whatever happens, people will adjust. And those who can't will eventually die off. That too is nature's way.
Once again, I'm not saying one sexuality is better than the other. Because I don't think any of them are. But if one truly holds to the creed (as I do) that a person's sexuality should make no difference, then having a 20% or 30% gay population should make no philosophical difference than having a 5% gay population.
Jeff
-
Moving on to K6's view of gay monogamy: It is absolutely true that monogamy in most gay relationships is just about as 'ironclad' as it is in str8 relationships, which is to say not very ironclad at all. But to admit that is not to say that it isn't a worthy aspiration for those relationships wherein both parties seek it. That is, sure, people 'cheat,' but I think the dynamic surrounding 'cheating' is different in a gay relationship than it is in a str8. Or, at least, it ought to be. It is a wise gay couple that clearly apprehends what seems to be the nature of men, and therefore does not promise absolute and everlasting monogamy from first meeting to death. Yes, guys sometimes 'step out,' and as often as not, for str8 people, the action of so doing (and the lies that seem to invariably surround the act) bring about the end of the str8 relationship. I would submit, however, that a smart gay couple, while generally monogamous, has made allowance for the prospect that one or the other partner will 'stray' from time to time. Having made such allowances, there are no lies, and relationship soldiers on. There is no compulsion for gay people to mean the same thing by the word 'monogamy' that str8s do. It is imprecise, but what else can you call a relationship that lasts, say, 25 years, but one wherein each partner 'steps out' two or three times in that stretch of time?
My fiews on monogamy and "open relationships":
Personally, I believe in a monogamous love relationship of two men when they passionately love and respect eachother. This is not the only type of relationship I have enjoyed and might imagine to enjoy in future, but it is a very desireable one. Being posessively loved and love same way in turn is an intense experience. Many such relationships do not last forever – the feelings often tend to cool down or other people crossing the way appear more interesting and fascinating. I don't see any real sense in pretending that one still passionately loves eachother when in truth one merely has a friendly relationship accompanied by mutual sex once in a while, and maybe shares the same house. If love is over, one can amicably separate and begin a new passionate relationship with somebody else.
On a political level I must say that everybody is free to seek his luck in any kind of relationship which two or more men are willing and able to build up. Having a poligamous or monogamous relationship is subject to negotiations between involved individuals.
It is surelly true that from time to time men might happen to "step out" even in many tight and long-lasting relationships. It is also a fact, that the reactions to such a "step out" might be different:
- an immediate break of the relationship,
- a stalwart argument followed by promises not to "step out" again and finally a reconciliation,
- a treaty between partners recognizing that sleeping with other people is from now on a natural right of a man and any discussions or reproaches connected to such a behaviour are unfair, backward and vicious.
Whereas an immediate break-up probably cannot be a wise action for a long-lasting and a serious relationship, I cann't say that every progressive gay must surrender to an "open relationship" against his true feelings. You argue, that one must not deny a man his alleged natural right to "step out" – but have you considered that it is also a natural right of a man to be posessive on the object of his love? You can't deny that this is at least as often occuring a feeling as the promisque drive among men. Your pledge for the open relationship is therefore a bit one-sided. Whereas I admit that it might be a solution for a couple where both partners enjoy this way of dealing with eachother, but I see no reason why one partner shall be forced into accepting of poligamous attitudes of his husband, whereas he himself is being teared apart by jealosy and feeling humiliated and not desired anymore? You teach the jealous husband not to be jealous anymore, I teach the treacherous husband not to be treacherous anymore and instead learn to respect his partner's feelings.
:+
At this point, I am ready to let the str8 people worry about the str8 kids-- at the moment, we have our hands full trying to keep the gay kids from killing themselves (or being killed by str8 kids), before they get a chance to be gay adults. And that effort is a more legitimate one for us.
This is a point often being neglected in our everyday debates. We are fine about us being gay and we believe that the kids have it much better novadays than we were. This is not necessarily the case: indeed, the homophobia is very persistent in schools, especially in those having socially marginallized clientele.
Moreover, there is a severe breach among the gay generations: the youngsters are consumptiously engaged in getting a profession and finding a bed mate, the middle-aged are busy with earning and spending money, and the olders do not dare to go out and make some contact with new people. All together we are badly in need of sharing our intergenerational experiences and give eachother the necessary support.
While it is obviously true that children cannot be produced through gay sexual intercourse, this does not mean that gay people cannot produce biological children amongst themselves. Just 15 years ago or so gay marriage was largely deemed as a far-fetched and unrealistic notion. [..] Today it can be more clearly viewed as what it truly is: another stage in the social development of homosexuals as a people.
It will hardly be the final stage. In fact, the succeeding stage is already occurring - though in a still relatively minor way. This is gay procreation. [..] Every indication is this phenomenon will continue to grow, and that similar to gay marriage, support (and involvement) in gay procreation will continue to expand. This is for the simple reason that child-rearing is not a heterosexual impulse, but a human impulse. [..] an impulse [..] that is shared by most people - particularly as one approaches or reaches middle age and one's priorities in life begin to change.
This development will radically alter who we are as individuals, and therefore, who we are as a people. Old definitions (or limitations) of what homosexuality is or can be, will become obsolete. This will disarm many of our most vocal critics: after all, one can't long argue that homosexuality is a ‘sterile' lifestyle when significant amounts of homosexuals are having biological children together.
Jeff, I used to be very fond of the idea of producing children by myself, and, actually I haven't surrendered this motion untill this day completely. Being a natural scientist, I am simply somewhat reluctant of accepting the idea of my genes being taken out of the genetic pool of the mankind. Generally, raising kids is a fine thing and one should not underestimate the work and commitment which parents invest into this activity. I am most sure that raising children enriches the individual's personality and does the society in general a good service.
However, I do not share the political implications of your beliefs: namely, that having children is a kind of natural duty and that renunciation of this venture leaves a person incomplete and being less successfull in life. In short, you are very close to state that sterility is in some way a mishap or a failure, and we therefore should try to prove the straight society that we are "not necessarily" steril. What is it, if not a well-meant, but still an obvious recommendation to "pass" as (better?) heterosexuals? No, my friend, you are cardinally mistaken in this point: a man can serve society in various ways: being a teacher, a scientist, a soldier or in some other way canallizing his energy into some other particular activity which is not solely selfish. I am far from adopting the ideas of Friedländer (who was an ugly antisemit), and his "Seven Propositions" (1908), but unquestioned adopting heterosexual values and their social patterns will not cause us having a new gay culture – it will merely make us a worthy part of heterosexual society.
There already are some societies (e.g. Japan) existing, which do not sanction homosexual affairs, as long as the individual does not oppose being married and generating off-spring. These societies regard the lack of descendents as bad luck, whereas purposefully staying sterile is an affront against family, society and the state. Accepting such an "integration" would mean to be completely defeated on all fields of emancipation as a people.
Therefore, even if accepting the right of an individual (or a group of individuals) to have and rise children, we should not define these activities as essential for us as a people. Instead, we should publicly admit that "recruiting" is not at all objectional and that we would be lucky to see as many kids as possible to turn out to be happy homosexuals. :=SU
[..] My parental philosophy in a nutshell is that you don't raise a child to be gay, bi, or straight; you raise them to be themselves. You let them know at appropriate times that there are 3 primary forms of love, and that all 3 are valid and will be accepted whichever one the child decides they are. [..]
I couldn't say this better! Children must grow up in an atmosphere of love and acceptance, no matter what their sexual orientation might turn up when they come into proper age. Alone, we can't agree into a policy which doesn't care whether parents do accept or dismiss this above guildlenes. It's not so much a matter of gay parents oppressing hetero offspring (never heard of this so far!) but rather a matter of straight parents emotionally abusing their queer kids (which is quite often). No society surrenders the field of raising and educating children entirely to the parents alone, we therefore rightfully should demand that heterosexual indoctrination of children must be limited, e.g. by proper treatment of homosexuality and gay history and culture in schools.
[..] Currently, no one knows for sure the reasons some children grow up to be gay. The leading theories are that it is either due to ‘nature' or ‘nurture', or some combination of these two. Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring.
What is largely unknown, is what percentage of offspring would be non-heterosexual if the two biological parents were both homosexual. In this case there most certainly would be reason to suspect a possible difference in the sexuality ratio. If there is a genetic link to sexuality (which many believe there is) such a link would reasonably be reflected in a larger number of non-straight offspring.
It seems that male and female homosexuality is not being caused by the same biological factors. It would be therefore not resonable to expect an increase of homosexual offspring if produced by two homosexual parents – most probably there woluld be the same 9:1 ratio even if the "gay genes" were located on chromosoms. Instead, the indices allow a funded conclusion, that a preferably homosexual orientation (of males) is being transmitted solely by the female line, causing essentially higher rates of male homosexuals in certain families. Male and female homosexuals with children themeself seem not to produce more homosexual offspring than the average of society. This can not be therefore explained sufficiently by the location of the "gay gene" on the X-chromosome. The most plausible explanation seems for me that the "gay gene" is located on the mitochondrial DNA, which is always being inherited from mother, and that this "gay gene" on the mitochondrial DNA somehow influences the production of testosteron in the female during the pregnancy (the concentration of testosteron in the blood of the mother at particular periods of the embrio's developement seems to influence sexual orientation of the child). An interesting phenomenon on it's own, and K6 will be probably pleased that it is possible to increase the feasibility of gay off-spring by an elaborated treatment of the breeding female with injections, or simply putting her into emotional stress. =)) Whatever the real cause of homosexuality is, it can't be that much disadvantageous to any given clan of monkeys - at this point the catholic charch is completely mistaken. Biologically, having childles brothers and sisters is very advantageous for a dominating female, because they stay somehow affiliated with her and help rise her offspring and protect it from concurrent clans. In the modern society (in terms of evolution), I must agree with the following argument of K6:
[..] The gay sexual orientation does have however and upon reflexion a purpose.Through it,gays renounce any private competence in matters having to do with human reproduction.
The best known example of this social purpose is probably the catholic church, which most likely was established by a bunch of homosexuals, no matter what ist current leadership wants make us to believe. The officers of this entity are not supposed to have their own children and instead must care for the rest of society at large (this was at least the original design, no doubt).
Besides, the catholic example teaches us as well, that any particular culture can be sustained through millenia, independently from current governmental form or changes in social structures of the society at large. This is not to say that such a culture will not alterate to a certain degree with centuries passing by, but the fundamental elements and the organization as community can be preserved for very long times.
In case the science shall actually make the doubtfull progress towards methodical selection or artificial generation of homo- or heterosexual embrios (and this is no doubt in the offing), we might face not only a cultural, but a physical genocide much earlier that we are expecting this. Experiences with Down-syndrom children in western world or with female embrios in China and India prove us, that whenever parents have the possibility to get rid of undesired off-spring, they have little scruppels to actually do this. I think there is no need to explain that kids with our sexual orientation do not belong into the wish list of straight parents, no matter how lovely parents they can be when we are grown up and they got used to us.
For us as a particular culture, in 20 or 50 years it might become the only possibility to procreate us as a people by artificial means, ourselves using the above mentioned technologies in influencing the sexual orientation of the off-spring. A very theoretical and ethically questionable debate at the moment, but it might become pretty urging one sunny day.
-
For us as a particular culture, in 20 or 50 years it might become the only possibility to procreate us as a people by artificial means, ourselves using the above mentioned technologies in influencing the sexual orientation of the off-spring. A very theoretical and ethically questionable debate at the moment, but it might become pretty urging one sunny day.
So long as we do not know exactly what causes homosexuality,we gays should not renew our population otherwise than we do now: by simply
not sending back the hetro elevator.By being what we are never mind the designs or protests of our hetro breeders.In a gay independent State,our human ressources would come by way of immigration solely.If we have the means to determine a gay sexual orientation,then we may reproduce.A scenario where this would become feasible would be in a gay State based on and peopled by only one sex,and by cloning or by out-of-the-womb gestation.In a society composed of individuals of only one sex,no adhesion to heterosexuality would be possible,and the issue of hetro kids would thus not arise.
K6
-
My fiews on monogamy and "open relationships":
In case the science shall actually make the doubtfull progress towards methodical selection or artificial generation of homo- or heterosexual embrios (and this is no doubt in the offing), we might face not only a cultural, but a physical genocide much earlier that we are expecting this. Experiences with Down-syndrom children in western world or with female embrios in China and India prove us, that whenever parents have the possibility to get rid of undesired off-spring, they have little scruppels to actually do this. I think there is no need to explain that kids with our sexual orientation do not belong into the wish list of straight parents, no matter how lovely parents they can be when we are grown up and they got used to us.
On that particular issue,I belong to a decidedly optimistic category.I do not believe in the genetic origin of homosexuality.I think that it is a learned pattern of behavior.Or more precisely a discovered one,since it is not taught by parents or by society.If such is the case,then we gays
cannot be wiped out.Homophobes could easily overcome an obstacle like a gay gene.They will be no match against the human spirit of discovery and invention embodied either in our sexual orientation.The gay gene theory ressembles too much to an apology for being gay.It is peddled by people who do not want to recognize gayness for what it is: a political issue.
K6
-
On that particular issue,I belong to a decidedly optimistic category.I do not believe in the genetic origin of homosexuality.I think that it is a learned pattern of behavior.Or more precisely a discovered one,since it is not taught by parents or by society.If such is the case,then we gays cannot be wiped out.Homophobes could easily overcome an obstacle like a gay gene.They will be no match against the human spirit of discovery and invention embodied either in our sexual orientation.The gay gene theory ressembles too much to an apology for being gay.It is peddled by people who do not want to recognize gayness for what it is: a political issue.
Beg your pardon, but I must contradict you. Its in the meanwhile not a question of philosophical beliefs or disbelief's - certain findings simply can't be denied. Whereas it is indeed politically of no interest for us what causes a human to become homo- , bi- or heterosexual, it is of certain interest for the science and is being investigated since several years. As a scientist, one is forced to acknowledge certain facts whether they do fit into one's world view or not.
All the "indices" I have mentioned in my previous post are not solely a product of philosophical discourse, they are based e.g. on morphological comparison of brains of homo- and heterosexual men, on physiological reactions while being exposed to male/female pheromones, measurements of hormones in pregnant women and correlation to sexuality of their off-spring. One can't change the morphology of one's brain by having homosexual sex or loving men, it is simply impossible - therefore in case of strong correlation of exclusive homosexuality and certain morphological differences one is forced to acknowledge that homosexuality has biological origin, whether it pleases oneself or not. The prerequisite of a correct statistical investigation is of course the exclusion of other possible causes for the observed morphological differences - such as previous illnesses, drug abuse or food preferences.
Significantly more gay males have a gay uncle from mother's side, even if they are early transferred to different family. The same is true for genetically identical twins, who mostly have equal sexuality independently from their familiar background. The genetic influence is therefore beyond any doubt - the only question is who's genes determine the sexuality of the male child - his own or those of the mother, or a certain combination of both factors (e.g. pregnant woman producing more testosterone and the embryo is being especially susceptible for this influence). The cases of identical twins usually can not be used to verify the "gay gene" in the child itself, as naturally these twins are developing in the same womb and of course equally react to any hormonal influence of the mother. From scientific point of view, it would be of certain interest to generate significant amount of identical embryos and implant them into different mothers - and then expose some of the expectant mothers to various agents. After birth, the kids would be equipped with under-skin radio markers and be raised in identical environment (ideally in one group in Kindergarten). Then after 15, 20 and 25 years the individuals would be compared. To make the results water-proof, the experiment should be performed with 10 - 20 sets of identical twins á 100 clones. :L Such an experiment sounds disgusting, but is the way the science guys usually test their ideas in animal experiments. No doubt, we will hear soon about such experiments from some or other country - people have invented nuclear weapons, why should they have any scruple to make research on something as fundamental as human procreation?
Whether these findings will be used in favor or against homosexuals, is not at all clear at the moment - e.g. they could be used for early weeding out gay individuals before they themeselves know they are gay. As for the optimistic gays from the US, I also have little doubts that though US-conservatives a lá Mr. Bush truly oppose the abortion and prenatal diagnostics, in case of homosexuals they will readily make an exception and supply the research with necessary financial fundings.
-
However, I do not share the political implications of your beliefs: namely, that having children is a kind of natural duty and that renunciation of this venture leaves a person incomplete and being less successfull in life. In short, you are very close to state that sterility is in some way a mishap or a failure, and we therefore should try to prove the straight society that we are "not necessarily" steril. What is it, if not a well-meant, but still an obvious recommendation to "pass" as (better?) heterosexuals? No, my friend, you are cardinally mistaken in this point: a man can serve society in various ways: being a teacher, a scientist, a soldier or in some other way canallizing his energy into some other particular activity which is not solely selfish. I am far from adopting the ideas of Friedländer (who was an ugly antisemit), and his "Seven Propositions" (1908), but unquestioned adopting heterosexual values and their social patterns will not cause us having a new gay culture – it will merely make us a worthy part of heterosexual society.
Hi Vicky,
Good to correspond with you again.
Political implications. Good lord, the last thing I was trying to venture into was politics. LOL
I just don't view having and raising children as a political act. You kind of took what I wrote and ran with it in a direction I certainly never meant to imply. I never said procreation was a natural duty or that those who don't have children are incomplete. Not sure where you got all that.
I was just trying to point out that despite some of the rhetoric in this forum, in the real world out there gay people are having children - and increasingly so. And no, the vast majority of them, are not doing it as a political act or to try and mimic or pass as heterosexuals. They are people who simply believe that the most important thing in life is love and family. And they desire both. My position has always been that only people who want children should have them, and that gay people are in a unique position for they can more freely choose whether to have them or not. There is nothing virtuous in having children if one does not want them.
Where I think you are a bit out of touch is in thinking that wanting a family is somehow trying to be heterosexual. It's as if you're implying that homosexuals who want children are in some way unnatural or maladjusted. Remember, there is a lot of diversity out there. There is no such thing as one correct type of homosexual. I have often believed, and still do, that a certain portion of the gay animosity towards heterosexuals is based on envy. Envy that heterosexuals can more easily have a family life. Since it's not as easy for us to achieve it, many of us demean it. This is reflected in the term 'breeder' where we've taken something as miraculous as the procreative gift and tried to turn it into a pejorative. Or worse yet, come to some bizarre conclusion that alone amongst all living creatures on this earth, we homosexuals weren't meant to reproduce. In this, we go hand-in-hand with some of our worst critics.
I am sorry, Vicky, but I must respectfully reject this whole line of thought. Not to desire a family life is perfectly fine if that is what one chooses. But to settle down with someone and start a family, to instill in young minds ideals of mutual respect and integrity, to watch them grow year by year, to care for them and love them, is one of the noblest and important things an individual can do. And yes, despite whether you want to face it or not, producing and preparing the next generation is part of what helps define a people as a people. Not the sole criteria, by any means, but a significant part of it.
It doesn't mean every individual in that group needs to follow suit, nor does it mean that those who don't are inferior or incomplete. And certainly, being a teacher or scientist or those other areas you mentioned are worthy and fulfilling activities. But one is able to be a teacher AND a parent; a scientist AND a father. And so on - if one chooses to be both. This is not an either/or issue.
I guess the last thing I'd like to say is that no culture exists in a vacuum. There are countless points of connection and similarity between differing cultures. Those who attempt to define gay culture as the complete opposite of straight culture do us all a disservice. But in the end it's not important what I believe, or you, or anyone else in this forum. It's every gay person living and breathing on the face of this Earth who will determine the future. And whether they choose your ideal of childlessness, or my ideal of family life, time will tell.
Jeff
-
I just don't view having and raising children as a political act. You kind of took what I wrote and ran with it in a direction I certainly never meant to imply. I never said procreation was a natural duty or that those who don't have children are incomplete. Not sure where you got all that.
I was just trying to point out that despite some of the rhetoric in this forum, in the real world out there gay people are having children - and increasingly so. And no, the vast majority of them, are not doing it as a political act or to try and mimic or pass as heterosexuals. They are people who simply believe that the most important thing in life is love and family. And they desire both. [..] Where I think you are a bit out of touch is in thinking that wanting a family is somehow trying to be heterosexual. It's as if you're implying that homosexuals who want children are in some way unnatural or maladjusted. [..] I am sorry, Vicky, but I must respectfully reject this whole line of thought. Not to desire a family life is perfectly fine if that is what one chooses. But to settle down with someone and start a family, to instill in young minds ideals of mutual respect and integrity, to watch them grow year by year, to care for them and love them, is one of the noblest and important things an individual can do.
Jeff, of course gay people getting children are doing so not as a political demonstration, and yes, raising children is a wonderfull thing. Taking a carefull revue of my previous posts (especially in discussions with K6 >:)), you will see that I clearly advocate the procreative rights as basic human rights of any individual and not to be interferred by society. Any individual gay or lesbian with a child wish (and a possibility) should take advantage of an opportunity and give the planet a new citizen. The mentioned political implication of not-having children classifying an individual as inferior arises in that moment, when the enterprise of having children is being suggested to be important for us as a social group. As a social group, we are not the one known to be designed for procreation by natural means. Your argumentation in the post before clearly states that you regard the overcome infertility as a valid argumentation for being recognized equal with heterosexuals. The logical revert of this argument is that you admit that not-overcome infertility is a valid argument for us being recognized as not equal with heterosexuals. Additionally, gay men with a child wish are entirely at the grace of other people - be it lesbians with child wish or commercial breeders. This renders the supposed baby-boom in homosexual (male) relationships as not very likely prospective, whereas lesbians, of course, are more qualified for becoming parents on their own (and actually use this possibility).
Therefore I must refuse the thought that gays with a child wish are jealous of heterosexuals - if at all, they are rather jealous of lesbians. >:)
Besides, does anyone still using the word "breeders" seriously? If so - I beg your pardon: I thought it is out of proper use since many years. =))
-
Beg your pardon, but I must contradict you. Its in the meanwhile not a question of philosophical beliefs or disbelief's - certain findings simply can't be denied. Whereas it is indeed politically of no interest for us what causes a human to become homo- , bi- or heterosexual, it is of certain interest for the science and is being investigated since several years. As a scientist, one is forced to acknowledge certain facts whether they do fit into one's world view or not.
I am not a scientist (I do not even have a university degree).Understanding a causal factor of sexual orientation based on genetics is beyond my
humble means.The same with sorting individuals on the basis of a genetic marker.I can only observe outward patterns of behavior,and from then on ascribe this or that individual as gay or as heterosexual.Which could potentially occur against his genetic make up,as described by a scientist.Cases will arise of individuals behaving entirely as Kinsey 6 gays,without the so-called gay gene.Or of individuals with the so-called gay gene,but without any of the outward behavior or sexual curricullum vitae of a gay.Genetics as a cause of gayness would besides rather explain why we shouldn`t be there.Or why we should eventually vanish or be wiped out.How a so-called gay gene could have been passed on from generation to generation by people who have no reproductive activity ? The human and the politician in me rejects any idea of possible extinction of the people I belong to,and rather seeks an explanation of the origins of gayness which at the same time smack the positive and the heroic.Like a human and gay will which shall be defeated by no adversary or defeatist suggestions or propaganda.The basic criteria to differenciate gays from heterosexuals is the outward behavior.All for the best if it confirms the sayings and explanations of science.Just too bad
if scientists describe me as heterosexual someone who behaves as a gay,or vice-versa.Humans are more social and cultural constructions than genetic ones in certain respects,including sexual orientation.A gay politician can find no use to gays who would prove merely theoretical.An
heterosexual gene would not save an individual who behaves as a gay in the eyes of homophobes.
K6
-
Besides, does anyone still using the word "breeders" seriously? If so - I beg your pardon: I thought it is out of proper use since many years. =))
As a term of contempt the word can still be heard in heated conversations.
-
I just don't view having and raising children as a political act.
It has to do with demographics,with the composition and make up of human societies,and therefore with politics in a quintessential manner.So-called gay parents (whom I do not regard as gays) approve in a rather unconditional manner society as it exists.Not some utopia supposedly to arise in the future.A gay,historically responsible to future gay generations,would not burden the young gays of tomorrow with
eventual heterosexual and homophobic playmates.He would rather live a whole life of honour and sacrifice for them,even if it means renouncing
parenthood.Even should it mean,in a gay independent State,entering some public service where he would be called upon to serve members of the younger age group and generation who aren`t his blood relatives.Perhaps,for example,as the political preceptor and adviser of some future leader of our people.
K6
-
[..]So-called gay parents (whom I do not regard as gays) approve in a rather unconditional manner society as it exists.Not some utopia supposedly to arise in the future.A gay,historically responsible to future gay generations,would not burden the young gays of tomorrow with eventual heterosexual and homophobic playmates. [..]
Hell, K6 - you are frightening me by times! Your arbitrary re-definition of gayness may bring you prematurely into grave one day. The way a single gay manages his life is of no state interest - only group dynamics have impact of some relevance. Whether someone has children or not, doesn't qualify this person for the high treason - neither in a prevalently straight nor in a prevalently gay society. Teasing a gay parent as not being truly gay is not very nice! 8((
[..] Genetics as a cause of gayness would besides rather explain why we shouldn`t be there.Or why we should eventually vanish or be wiped out.How a so-called gay gene could have been passed on from generation to generation by people who have no reproductive activity ? [..]
To understand the mechanism of transferring "gay gene" through generations, certain knowledges of biology and elemental genetics are of course helpful. But it is not that much complicated that one needs a university degree in biology - I don't have either.
1) Human genes are included partly in chromosomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome) (in the nucleus of the cell) and partly in small organelles called mitochondrion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion>mitochondrion). More precisely, the genes in these chromosomes and in mitochondria are located on molecules called DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA).
2) Most genetic information about our physical appearance and body functions is located in chromosomal DNA, very few on mitochondrial DNA.
3) When an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man fuse into an embrional cell, they bring in each the 1/2 of the chromosomes from the parents. It is a merely accidental, which of our 46 chromosomes (we have 2 of 23 different types) come into the sperm or the egg. This accidental combination of chromosomes is mostly responsible for our hard ware.
4) The sperm includes almost no mitochondria, but the egg has many of them - therefore almost all genes in mitochondrias come from the mother. All these genes codified in the mitochondrial DNA will be transferred from mather to daughter and to the granddaughter and so on, being not "contaminated" by any foreign males who were used as partners.
5) Now, if the mitochondrial DNA is responsible for generation of let's say 30% gay male kids among the offspring of a certain female line, this would not at all prohibit this female line from reproduction. The female herself, as her daughters are, is fertile - only some of her boys are gay. They will most probably not build their own families and instead stay with the clan and help to rise their brothers/sisters and nephews and therefore provide an evolutionary advantage to the female family with the "gay gene".
The scenario depicted under point 5) is of course, solely a theory explaining the coincidence of gays having gay uncles from the mother's side, which is very often the case.
But even if some "gay genes" are located on the chromosomes, this not necessarily must cause homosexuality of their carrier - for example, if 2 gay genes were required for causing a mostly homosexual individual. Therefore all the carrier of only 1 gay gene would be heterosexuals and would transfer it to some of their offsprings - the gay gene surviving over generations and leading to no impact in overall reproduction statistics.
But again, these scientific stuff is not necessary for any justifications of homosexuality or the homosexual as a person. The previous generations of homosexuals were doing pretty fine without any knowledge about genetics, though they also were making certain speculations about the origins of human sexuality - the already quoted passage in Plato's "Symposium" is testifying this.
:L
-
Hell, K6 - you are frightening me by times! Your arbitrary re-definition of gayness may bring you prematurely into grave one day. The way a single gay manages his life is of no state interest - only group dynamics have impact of some relevance. Whether someone has children or not, doesn't qualify this person for the high treason
There is no treason in having children.Merely,it indicates - in most cases - that the individual is not a gay person.Liberal and individualistic algebra
could demonstrate that such an individual is gay.Whereas arithmetics - which I prefer to algebra - would demonstrate that he isn`t.In arithmetics,one takes into consideration the contribution of that individual to homosexuality as a cultural and political interest and historical continuity. Undoubtedly such a contribution exists in the case of so-called gay parents.Perhaps 75 years based on an average life span.But one must also substract the contribution to the heterosexual political body by way of mostly heterosexual descendants,which will amount in centuries,if not millenia.One must further add,in the minus and negative column,any harm some of those descendants will cause to future gays,for which the so-called gay parents and ancestors are responsible.Or at the very least,do not care about,since they dwell in an apolitical attitude which is actually and highly political.Obviously,the so-called gay parents are deep in the red with the gay community.They contribute
less to the gay side than to the hetro one,purposedly.
K6
-
But again, these scientific stuff is not necessary for any justifications of homosexuality or the homosexual as a person. The previous generations of homosexuals were doing pretty fine without any knowledge about genetics, though they also were making certain speculations about the origins of human sexuality - the already quoted passage in Plato's "Symposium" is testifying this.
:L
If the genetic homosexuality remains a merely potential one,which most of the time does not translate into deeds,it is of little interest to a consequent gay political organization.A gay political organization needs individuals who act like gays.It could achieve nothing with merely
theoretical or potential gays.
K6
-
The mentioned political implication of not-having children classifying an individual as inferior arises in that moment, when the enterprise of having children is being suggested to be important for us as a social group. As a social group, we are not the one known to be designed for procreation by natural means. Your argumentation in the post before clearly states that you regard the overcome infertility as a valid argumentation for being recognized equal with heterosexuals. The logical revert of this argument is that you admit that not-overcome infertility is a valid argument for us being recognized as not equal with heterosexuals. Additionally, gay men with a child wish are entirely at the grace of other people - be it lesbians with child wish or commercial breeders. This renders the supposed baby-boom in homosexual (male) relationships as not very likely prospective, whereas lesbians, of course, are more qualified for becoming parents on their own (and actually use this possibility).
I'm not sure what you mean by ‘social group.' The local bridge club could be referred to as a social group. Or the local Garden Club or bowling league. I view homosexuals as something deeper, as a unique ‘people.' And as such, having children IS important for us as a people. It's important for EVERY group who consider themselves a people. I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with this, but to be a legitimate people a form of generational reproduction must be present, or able to be present. Otherwise, we merely are, as you suggest, a ‘social group.'
And my motivation for writing this is not to be recognized as ‘equal' to heterosexuals. My motivation, as always, is to encourage and facilitate the social (love, marriage, family, community) and cultural (arts & entertainment) development of gay people. Certainly, the achievement of family life (particularly, biological) is a more developed state for a people than being non-procreative. Do you disagree with this?
Choosing not to reproduce does not make a person inferior. Nor does it place upon that individual a stigma. At least not in my mind. If it elicits this response in the individual, than it has more to do with that person's own insecurities than any social disapproval. Even heterosexual society has long disbanded any stigma on those who choose not to have children. What I'm saying is that gay people in general (not each and every individual homosexual) need to join the cycle of life. We need to add our genes to the global genetic pool. Not only will it make many of us happier, it will change the world - and our situation - for the better.
As far as the mechanics of gay procreation, I don't expect any real gay baby-boom in the near future. This is something that will begin as a trickle (which is what is happening) and then continue to grow. If I had to choose one course of gay procreation as my potential favorite I would likely select the super-family model (one gay male couple producing and raising biological children with one gay female couple). This, I assume, you know since it was featured in my book.
It's my preference mainly because it's more practical and inexpensive than the alternatives: sperm banks, surrogate mothers. It also allows the children to be raised by both of their biological parents. There are a string of additional arguments for it which are in the book and which I won't go through here as it's not the focus of this post. The point is, what is lacking is not any special technology, merely the social structure. The institution, if you will. And as I always stress, this type of family unit is not for everyone. It, as well, will find only a handful of initial advocates, but I believe in time, as the benefits are seen, more couples will decide to try it. I think perhaps the greatest growth will probably come from gay children who are born and raised in these types of families. Many might choose to form such families of their own. But regardless, it will take several generations before it takes hold (if ever); and it will never be the sole gay family structure.
Now before I get my head bit off, I'm not saying other forms of gay families are no good or inadequate or inferior. Only that in my opinion this offers us the most stable, practical avenue towards gay procreation.
But even if some "gay genes" are located on the chromosomes, this not necessarily must cause homosexuality of their carrier - for example, if 2 gay genes were required for causing a mostly homosexual individual. Therefore all the carrier of only 1 gay gene would be heterosexuals and would transfer it to some of their offsprings - the gay gene surviving over generations and leading to no impact in overall reproduction statistics.
I read this carefully, and from what I make out it only seems to support my initial supposition: that the biological children of a gay male and a gay female might have a higher incidence of homosexuality (however tiny it might be) than the children of heterosexual parents. If there are gay genes present, they will have a greater chance of being passed on through gay parents. And if it requires two gay genes for a child to be gay (as you suggest might be a requirement) the chances for this will most often occur if the two parents themselves are gay. You're also overlooking the other half of the equation: the nurture, or environmental factor. Living in a gay-friendly family environment will lead more children to openly announce their homosexuality or bisexuality, rather than hide it and form unfullfilling (but more socially acceptable) heterosexual unions. Most literature I've read on this matter - and I admit it's been limited - seems to conclude that homosexuality is most likely brought about by a mix of these genetic and environmental factors. Not just one or the other. But again, at this stage, it is still unknown. And whether or not the children are gay is relatively unimportant; what is far more important is that they will have very little likelihood of growing up to be Straight Supremacists.
Jeff
-
5) Now, if the mitochondrial DNA is responsible for generation of let's say 30% gay male kids among the offspring of a certain female line, this would not at all prohibit this female line from reproduction. The female herself, as her daughters are, is fertile - only some of her boys are gay. They will most probably not build their own families and instead stay with the clan and help to rise their brothers/sisters and nephews and therefore provide an evolutionary advantage to the female family with the "gay gene".
This trend of thinking is difficult to reconcile with an idea of gay self-determination which would make of us gays the sole agents of our existence,survival and ultimately political independence.It leaves too much to others,whose interests are differential.It dilutes and minimizes our responsibility,as sole and ultimate defenders of our culture and people.In a country of ours,and in history books of the future by which way other generations of gays would be instructed of their tasks and duties,there would be this sentence: "From the beginning,and since the origins of mankind and of recorded human history,our gay people stood alone,as nobody else would have saved us but ourselves".
K6
-
And my motivation for writing this is not to be recognized as ‘equal' to heterosexuals. My motivation, as always, is to encourage and facilitate the social (love, marriage, family, community) and cultural (arts & entertainment) development of gay people. Certainly, the achievement of family life (particularly, biological) is a more developed state for a people than being non-procreative. Do you disagree with this?
I most certainly do disagree with this statement. This is the contentious point of the debate. While raising, nurturing and education of the next generation of a people is certainly a progress, the biological procreation itself is not. By participation in biological procreation a particular gay can certainly find his private luck (which is good), but he most likely doesn't contribute any member to the gay people. All the talk about higher tolerance is true, but it hardly matters for the social impact. Let's say we make 10% of society, and 10% of us get kids, this would make than 0.10 * 0.10 * 100% = 1% of the entire population (under condition, that each gay couple has 4 children). Do you think it matters that much for us as a whole, whether 1% of society is more tolerant and accepting?
As a people, we are namely different from other people's of the world: we do not need to reproduce ourselves biologically - straights do it for us. To be sure, we define the gay people as a people consisting of homosexuals. Consequently, a straight child is an "alien" in the homosexual family - as a gay child is an "alien" in the hetero-family. Straights as a people can cope with breeding 10% aliens among them, whereas it still seems to be a bad luck for any particular straight family. Gays as a people can't afford breeding 90% aliens among them, be it a private luck for the concerned gay family. Investing time and devotion in growing up children, which will be in 9 of 10 cases straight, is in no way a great service for us as a people. Whereas a Dunnock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnock) certainly loves the Cuckoo's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Cuckoo) children it is raising in hist nest, there is no use for it's own species deriving from this action. There is no logical reason for us to serve as a host species for straights, and certainly not the way to ensure our future as a people.
What we instead need as a people is a strategy of securing our cultural goods and history and granting access to them to our own youth. It's not like there are not enough gay kids born to this world - but they are often being murdered or kill themselves or lead a life far from being bearable. This requires our engagement, these kids are in need of our help and protection. How can we reach them at an early stage and let them participate in our culture as early as possible? How can we help them to develop an integer and healthy gay personality?
If one day the biological origins of homosexuality are sufficiently investigated and would allow us to have 90% queer kids among us - then, yes, I will agree with you that we could come to a higher stage as a people and will be able to abandon the stage of being brood parasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite) as we are. And that time will be probably the best and the last opportunity to start with biological reproduction, as vice versa the straights will begin to eliminate us in the stage of embryos.
More generally, the controversy of the subject is not that much due to the dispute between "good" and "evil" - it's a question of the goals or purposes one individual or a group of individuals is aiming. We can discuss about whether a particular suggestion is suitable or or less suitable for achievement of a particular goal or the other. But it would be foolish to fiercefully discuss the usefullness of a particular suggestion, if in truth we are discordant about the goals! Jeff - you are finally aiming the integration, I am propagating separation - both destinations being very different in the choice of means for their realization. In certain respects, e.g. concerning cultural progress and propagation of art we certainly have more in common, regardless of our other differences. Agreed?
-
I most certainly do disagree with this statement. This is the contentious point of the debate. While raising, nurturing and education of the next generation of a people is certainly a progress, the biological procreation itself is not. By participation in biological procreation a particular gay can certainly find his private luck (which is good), but he most likely doesn't contribute any member to the gay people. All the talk about higher tolerance is true, but it hardly matters for the social impact. Let's say we make 10% of society, and 10% of us get kids, this would make than 0.10 * 0.10 * 100% = 1% of the entire population (under condition, that each gay couple has 4 children). Do you think it matters that much for us as a whole, whether 1% of society is more tolerant and accepting?
I think that the line of reasoning of Jemiko is similar to the one of those heterosexuals in some third world countries who proliferate like rabbits.Their kids are their insurance for and in old life,in countries which have little or no developped social services,where no help is to be expected from the State.Where actually the family performs social services which would otherwise rendered by the State.So-called gay parents surround themselves with heterosexual descendants,with the idea of not being excluded by them because of the blood ties.Or not to end up alone towards the end of their lives.Which is not exactly as things might turn out.They could end up in a senior`s home,abandonned by their
descendants as happens to many heterosexual parents in affluent countries.If kids can abandon their parents that way,they can also disown
so-called gay parents and leave them in the lurch wether society pressures them or not to do so.And for the same callous and apparently apolitical reasons: their carreer,their own families,which they are not likely to put in jeopardy for the sake of a parent with peripheral homosexual tendencies.
K6
-
What we instead need as a people is a strategy of securing our cultural goods and history and granting access to them to our own your youth. It's not like there are not enough gay kids born to this world - but they are often being murdered or kill themselves or lead a life far from being bearable. This requires our engagement, these kids are in need of our help and protection. How can we reach them at an early stage and let them participate in our culture as early as possible? How can we help them to develop an integer and healthy gay personality?
That could hardly be effected on any large scale under a hethro regime,even a benevolent one.In order to enjoy a normal moral authority over
our youth,we would need to be politically independent.A gay State,of which we may dream,is actually not for us as individuals or as a given generation.It is actually to save our youth,and spare it a life of misery under foreign hethro rule.If we do so and succeed,some future generation of gays having spent most of their lives in an independent gay country shall write books of history.And in those books,the ones among us who
have conceived the idea of political independence or carried it out shall be the heroes.A way among others to live eternally,that is in the glory of a gratefull nation.
K6
-
I most certainly do disagree with this statement. This is the contentious point of the debate. While raising, nurturing and education of the next generation of a people is certainly a progress, the biological procreation itself is not. By participation in biological procreation a particular gay can certainly find his private luck (which is good), but he most likely doesn't contribute any member to the gay people. All the talk about higher tolerance is true, but it hardly matters for the social impact. Let's say we make 10% of society, and 10% of us get kids, this would make than 0.10 * 0.10 * 100% = 1% of the entire population (under condition, that each gay couple has 4 children). Do you think it matters that much for us as a whole, whether 1% of society is more tolerant and accepting?
It doesn't just influence the children. It also influences the future spouses of those children, and the children of those children. It influences friends and neighbors of those families. It influences fellow workers. It influences distant relatives and acquaintances. It influences complete strangers who observe gay couples with children. It influences everyone who reads about these families in the paper, or sees a news story about them on TV. In all these countless ways it influences the larger society, which in time influences the politicians who must get elected by that society. I fear, Vicky, that at times your ideology clouds your understanding of these issues. Love and decency are not as scarce as you seem to want to believe.
As a people, we are namely different from other people's of the world: we do not need to reproduce ourselves biologically - straights do it for us. To be sure, we define the gay people as a people consisting of homosexuals. Consequently, a straight child is an "alien" in the homosexual family - as a gay child is an "alien" in the hetero-family. Straights as a people can cope with breeding 10% aliens among them, whereas it still seems to be a bad luck for any particular straight family. Gays as a people can't afford breeding 90% aliens among them, be it a private luck for the concerned gay family.
Good lord, Vicky. Listen to yourself. Aliens? How dare you use terms like that to describe the parent-child bond? That is truly shameful.
What we instead need as a people is a strategy of securing our cultural goods and history and granting access to them to our own youth. It's not like there are not enough gay kids born to this world - but they are often being murdered or kill themselves or lead a life far from being bearable. This requires our engagement, these kids are in need of our help and protection. How can we reach them at an early stage and let them participate in our culture as early as possible? How can we help them to develop an integer and healthy gay personality?
How? Well we could start by raising some of them ourselves. On the one hand you state that "we do not need to reproduce ourselves biologically - straights do it for us." And then just a couple paragraphs later you bemoan the ill fate that befalls some gay kids after being raised by heterosexuals. You can't have it both ways, Vicky. You can't promote the abdication of all gay participation in child rearing and then criticize parents for the way they're rearing their gay children. No one is going to take you seriously. They might, however, take a gay parent seriously.
If one day the biological origins of homosexuality are sufficiently investigated and would allow us to have 90% queer kids among us - then, yes, I will agree with you that we could come to a higher stage as a people and will be able to abandon the stage of being brood parasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite) as we are.
You're all over the board here, Vicky. With this statement it becomes clear that you are not opposed to gay procreation (as you previously implied) you are opposed to gays producing heterosexual children. If they produced homosexual children that would be just fine in your book. There is nothing different in this viewpoint than the homophobic parent railing that he or she won't tolerate having a gay child. Your attitudes are identical, only the sides you argue from are different. You disappoint me, Vicky. What right have you to ask for acceptance if you're unwilling to offer the same?
More generally, the controversy of the subject is not that much due to the dispute between "good" and "evil" - it's a question of the goals or purposes one individual or a group of individuals is aiming. We can discuss about whether a particular suggestion is suitable or or less suitable for achievement of a particular goal or the other. But it would be foolish to fiercefully discuss the usefullness of a particular suggestion, if in truth we are discordant about the goals! Jeff - you are finally aiming the integration, I am propagating separation - both destinations being very different in the choice of means for their realization.
I have never hid or denied that I am an integrationist. You were well aware of that when you asked me to join this forum. Of course we disagree on the goal. We always have. What I've written here in these recent postings is not in connection to this forum's primary goal (intentional segregation) but rather to the overall good of gay folks everywhere. That is the point at which I re-entered the debate here - specifically in response to a post which claimed that gays will end up as losers in any policy of integration. I felt it necessary to state my view - which I did. I will now go back to more productive pursuits. Thank you.
Jeff
-
Jeff, you apparently absolutely didn't understand what I actually have said. Neither do I oppose anyone have straight or gay children, nor do I oppose gay people having children.
I solely oppose that motion of you, that raising children has something to do with gay emancipation or gay culture. Look, when I devote myself to protection of the rain forests in Brasilia, it would be a wonderfull thing and certainly do good to my personal developement and do people in Brasilia some good. It is also very probable, that I would gain respect from a lot of people. But in what way, if you please, does this honorable occupation have something to do with the gay people?
-
It doesn't just influence the children. It also influences the future spouses of those children, and the children of those children.
Children - if you have children - could turn against you.Do not say that it could not happen.There are already conflicts of that sort between children and parents as ordinary blood relatives without peripheral homosexual tendencies among the parents.Peripheral homosexual tendencies in so-called gay parents only add a factor of potential,further and serious conflict fueled by the surrounding social environment,which by historical and geographical standards is and will remain generally hostile to homosexuality and to gays.It would take only some societal pressure on the children to turn against their so-called gay parents.And even less would be required in the case of the grandchildren and members of ensuing generations who,in a context which remains generally homophobic,would not like to be reminded of their so-called gay parents or ancestors.The parenting which you call gay has probably and always existed.Yet,it hasn`t changed the world in the sense you indicate.Gays cannot remain a further 2,000 years under hethro yoke only to demonstrate something which is already demonstrated and which they already know,that is the general hostility to homosexuality in history and geography.
K6
-
Jeff, you apparently absolutely didn't understand what I actually have said. Neither do I oppose anyone have straight or gay children, nor do I oppose gay people having children.
I solely oppose that motion of you, that raising children has something to do with gay emancipation or gay culture.
Gay procreation contributes to both gay emancipation and gay culture (and many other areas) by contributing to gay development.
Vicky, I've said all this before. I'll try to restate it here briefly. The way I see it there are three dimensions to sexuality identity. By sexuality identity I mean those who identify as one of the three primary sexualities: homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. These three dimensions are the sexual dimension, the social dimension, and the cultural dimension. The sexual dimension (sexual attraction) provides the furnace; it's the driving force, the engine. The social dimension is the community and family organization; how we interact as a people. And the cultural dimension incorporates the arts and entertainment; it's the civilizing force, the creative and intellectual exploration of oneself and one's people. It's the intermeshing of these three areas which brings a three-dimensional structure to life. Gay people are not inferior to heterosexuals, they are simply less developed. Not so much in the sexual area, but in the social and cultural areas.
Therefore, one of our most primary goals should be to encourage and achieve this group development as fully as possible. Not for the purpose of mimicking anyone, but for our own benefit as individuals, as couples, as families, as communities, and as a people.
The area of social development can be said to include structures that encourage (or at the very least provide an institution for) love, marriage, family, and community. All of these add further options that each individual can choose from. They're additional choices. They expand the range of possibilities, and by doing so they expand the group's scope of development. Gay procreation falls under the social development dimension. It clearly would represent another option, and therefore an expansion of gay development. And since developing ourselves to our full potential is the goal, gay procreation would help us in this respect. Not pursuing gay procreation, on the other hand, would represent a limitation of gay social development. This is just basic common sense.
While I can't be sure what your reasons for refusing to accept this are, I suspect they have something to do with your gay nation agenda. Clearly, gay citizens having children might lead to a reduction and eventually eradication of any gay majority in such a nation. In your mind, gay procreation might therefore constitute a threat, and this could account for your hostility to it (at least, as you state, until it can be guaranteed to produce a 90% or more gay ratio) and your trivilization of its contributions to our social development. You might also find it threatening that gay parents would love their straight children, and consequently not distrust heterosexuals enough for your taste - which would further undermine your agenda of a gay nation by reducing the number of potential recruits or supporters.
The problem here, I think, is that your definition of homosexuality is simply outdated. It's old-school homosexuality. Gay people ARE starting families. Gay people ARE having children. Gay and straight people ARE taking the first steps in starting to learn how to live together. This is not speculative. I think a further problem might be your contention that reproduction is a heterosexual event rather than a human event. Since gay people are able to reproduce, and are reproducing, your definition here is flawed as well. By engaging the natural order of procreation, gay people only enhance their position as a legitimate people - since one of the requirements of such a people is the ability to self-replicate and self-sustain oneself. What further sign of gay emancipation do you need than the emancipation of our dependency on heterosexuals to produce and raise us? Only by gay procreation can we achieve this level of emancipation. It also frees us from having to count on adoption (with its required heterosexual approval) as our sole source of children for child rearing.
Come on, Vicky. Look around you. Do you seriously expect large amounts of people to choose the sort of militant propaganda your proposing over integration and a possible family life? People are sick and tired of this Us vs. Them paranoia. I know I am. You, of course, are free to think and believe and advocate what you wish. That is your choice. But closing one eye to the gay world around you does not mean that your vision is enhanced. Or accurate.
A quick P.S.: As far as misunderstanding what you wrote, your words were very clear. You might have misstated your position, but as it was written - I understood it quite well.
-
Children - if you have children - could turn against you.Do not say that it could not happen.There are already conflicts of that sort between children and parents as ordinary blood relatives without peripheral homosexual tendencies among the parents.Peripheral homosexual tendencies in so-called gay parents only add a factor of potential,further and serious conflict fueled by the surrounding social environment,which by historical and geographical standards is and will remain generally hostile to homosexuality and to gays.It would take only some societal pressure on the children to turn against their so-called gay parents.And even less would be required in the case of the grandchildren and members of ensuing generations who,in a context which remains generally homophobic,would not like to be reminded of their so-called gay parents or ancestors.
K6,
Do you seriously live in such fear? I mean, where do you live, man? Tehran? Poll after poll reveals (and reality verifies) that tolerance AND acceptance of gays is growing among the young. As the older, less-tolerant generations die out, this acceptance will continue to rise. Now, of course, nothing is guaranteed but the reversal of this trend would take some incredibly dramatic development - such as, for instance, the start-up of a discriminatory ‘gay' nation where only homosexuals are legally permitted to be citizens. This might cause some previously fair-minded heterosexuals to reassess their view of their gay fellow citizens.
You don't fight discrimination with discrimination. And you certainly don't fight intolerance with intolerance. Civil rights campaigns require a lot of things, but mostly they require engagement.
Jeff
-
K6,
Do you seriously live in such fear?
I fear nothing and no one,while I am in the service of the gay people and of its heroic youth.How could I perish,as a component of an eternal struggle for gay self-determination ? I was nothing,my gay people is everything.I stand on the side of the future gay generations,my sole
judges,in their consequent choice and pursuit of self-determination in a sovereign gay country of ours.I beg for their forgiveness for not having done all I could do in year 2006.
K6
-
The problem here, I think, is that your definition of homosexuality is simply outdated. It's old-school homosexuality. Gay people ARE starting families. Gay people ARE having children. Gay and straight people ARE taking the first steps in starting to learn how to live together.
Undertaking a tour of the 193 existing independent countries would soon correct that rosy perception and picture.Anyone who has retained
any parental authority in most places did so by compromising with some hethro demographic regime whose purpose is to produce heterosexuals
only.Not to mention the compromission with the hethro lifestyle itself which sheds doubts over the gayness of anyone who is a parent.
K6
-
While I can't be sure what your reasons for refusing to accept this are, I suspect they have something to do with your gay nation agenda. Clearly, gay citizens having children might lead to a reduction and eventually eradication of any gay majority in such a nation. In your mind, gay procreation might therefore constitute a threat, and this could account for your hostility to it (at least, as you state, until it can be guaranteed to produce a 90% or more gay ratio) and your trivilization of its contributions to our social development. You might also find it threatening that gay parents would love their straight children, and consequently not distrust heterosexuals enough for your taste - which would further undermine your agenda of a gay nation by reducing the number of potential recruits or supporters. [..]
Jeff, you underscore me both intellectually and morally. Whereas I can understand, that it is very convenient for you in a debate to attach me some additional extremist views and believe they were truly mine, you shouldn't give in to this temptation.
Through all our discussions in this forum I constantly propagated the idea that in any future gay state it should be a basic human right of citizens to have children, if they wish so. I also do not regard any gay parenting as a serious danger for such a state – simply because the effect would be below any percentile significance, in my eyes. Why do you make it that simple for you – either one is with or against you? I do not regard your "agenda" as threatening or harmful, no am I intended to impose my ideas upon someone. I simply don't share your views on the subject – you shouldn't be offended if I do not find your arguments convincing and clearly explain my reasons for not doing so.
As for the numbers of supporters and similar primitive or dishonest motivations – time alone will show whether the idea will prove to be of some use for our people or not. The idea of a gay state is not my personal invention, neither am I thinking of my humble self as being a kind of messias - I am simply trying to contribute my share.
Come on, Vicky. Look around you. Do you seriously expect large amounts of people to choose the sort of militant propaganda your proposing over integration and a possible family life? People are sick and tired of this Us vs. Them paranoia. I know I am.
Do you seriously live in such fear? I mean, where do you live, man? Tehran? Poll after poll reveals (and reality verifies) that tolerance AND acceptance of gays is growing among the young. As the older, less-tolerant generations die out, this acceptance will continue to rise.
Jeff, do we live on the same planet? You generalize your private cosy experiences (made in a very limited geographical and social space) upon the entire world, and additionally extrapolate them into the future, basing your entire argumentation upon the very narrow time slot - last 50 years in the western civilization. Whereas it is certainly true that in some countries and areas some progresses were made, it is also true that in some countries and areas the situation has gotten significantly worse. Your request upon K6 living in Tehran reveals that you are well aware of the situation of gays there, but dismiss this knowledge as irrelevant for the debate – why? Are those unhappy creatures not a part of the gay people? Or is the truth too much disturbing for your comfortable world view?
Now, of course, nothing is guaranteed but the reversal of this trend would take some incredibly dramatic development - such as, for instance, the start-up of a discriminatory ‘gay' nation where only homosexuals are legally permitted to be citizens. This might cause some previously fair-minded heterosexuals to reassess their view of their gay fellow citizens.
Oh yes, of course. I refer you to Denneny's "Fourth Proposition: Internalized Homophobia." As next you will tell us that all those leather-men, queens and dykes are themeself provoking homophobia and bring us all in danger through their indecent behaviour. As well as those who are flaunting their homosexuality –"is all these kissing and hand-keeping in public really necessary?" Not this way, Jeff.
If I may, I would like to stress Theodor Herzl once again:
"However, the fact that I draw this conclusion ingenuously and guided only by the truth will probably net me the opposition and enmity of those Jews who are in comfortable circumstances. [..] But from the outset I wish to keep any erroneous ideas from arising, particularly the notion that Jewish property might be harmed if this plan ever materialized. [..] If, on the other hand, my plan never becomes anything but a piece of literature, things will remain as they are anyway."
-
As for the numbers of supporters and similar primitive or dishonest motivations – time alone will show whether the idea will prove to be of some use for our people or not. The idea of a gay state is not my personal invention, neither am I thinking of my humble self as being a kind of messias - I am simply trying to contribute my share.
The idea of political independence in a sovereign country of ours could have occured to any of us.There is no merit in that,since the idea of the modern nation-State has already been discovered and evolved by organized heterosexual societies over the three or four last centuries.Since we
live in those societies and are influenced by them,the appearance of gay separatists on the scene would have occured sooner or later,and was unavoidable.If we had not appeared and acted,others would have done so in our place.We are only pupils in that process of learning and analysis of heterosexual societies,and of drawing consequences.Not much remains to be invented to adjust the mantle of the nation-State so that it will fit our interest.We are the gays whom heterosexual societies raised and deserved.We cannot give back to heterosexual societies what we did not learned or received from them.And we live on earth to pursue earthly desires,by the earthly ways we were handed down and taught by
history.Many aspects of our own culture could be lost.But the idea of political independence,because of its general and human aspect,either
cannot be forgotten by us or its discovery and application to our situation cannot be avoided.
K6
-
You generalize your private cosy experiences (made in a very limited geographical and social space) upon the entire world, and additionally extrapolate them into the future, basing your entire argumentation upon the very narrow time slot - last 50 years in the western civilization.
We know for certain that occasionnally and in history,homosexuality was tolerated.But these times did not lasted,for the obvious simple reason
that they were not guaranteed by anything which would have made it perilous to abolish our then relative situation of freedom.And a closer
study of those eras or nowadays places of relative freedom would teach us that homosexuality was tolerated only insofar as it did not interfered
with family life,only insofar as it did not displayed political ambitions similar to the ones of the heterosexual part of human societies which wanted to
retain the State organization as its monopoly.
K6
-
Jeff, you underscore me both intellectually and morally. Whereas I can understand, that it is very convenient for you in a debate to attach me some additional extremist views and believe they were truly mine, you shouldn't give in to this temptation.
Through all our discussions in this forum I constantly propagated the idea that in any future gay state it should be a basic human right of citizens to have children, if they wish so. I also do not regard any gay parenting as a serious danger for such a state – simply because the effect would be below any percentile significance, in my eyes. Why do you make it that simple for you – either one is with or against you? I do not regard your "agenda" as threatening or harmful, no am I intended to impose my ideas upon someone. I simply don't share your views on the subject – you shouldn't be offended if I do not find your arguments convincing and clearly explain my reasons for not doing so.
Vicky, I apologize if I have insulted you. That was not my intent. Debates, particularly in a forum such as this, have a tendency to sound more heated than they are. The idea of gay procreation does seem for some reason to have provoked you, particularly the view that gay procreation marks an advancement in gay development. I tried to clearly and briefly state my case supporting this. If your reasons for rejecting this are different than the ones I suggested, I apologize, but you have given no clear, logical argument supporting your position - other than some vague, unsubstantiated claim that reproduction was somehow not for homosexuals. (A claim which reality refutes. Not just I.) And now some even vaguer assertion that you don't view it as threat because its occurrence, in your eyes, would be below a significant percentile. But what does this mean? If it proved to grow above a certain percentile you WOULD view it as a threat? Would you then oppose it? Allow it? What? You're not completing your thoughts, Vicky. With so little to go on, you often leave me no choice on these issues but to conjecture.
Jeff, do we live on the same planet? You generalize your private cosy experiences (made in a very limited geographical and social space) upon the entire world, and additionally extrapolate them into the future, basing your entire argumentation upon the very narrow time slot - last 50 years in the western civilization. Whereas it is certainly true that in some countries and areas some progresses were made, it is also true that in some countries and areas the situation has gotten significantly worse.
The fact that the social climate has improved for homosexuals over the past 50 years is no accident. It coincides with the formation and growth of an organized and active gay rights movement. While homosexuals have certainly existed all through history, and same-sex relations have been tolerated at certain times and in certain areas, to my knowledge there has never been anything remotely close to the gay rights movement we have today. So yes, I do use the past half century or so as the basis of my argument. What do you prefer to use, the preceding millennia when there was no such gay rights movement?
Progress is not made uniformly. You shouldn't even expect that. Despite the setbacks, despite the opposition, despite the areas of intense oppression, the overall global situation has never been better for gay people. And this is a trend that is continuing. You seem to denigrate the fact that I'm an optimist (with your remark about my ‘private cosy experience' - even though you have no idea what my life has been like) but my optimism comes from an analysis of the facts. The past couple years have seen legalized gay marriage in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts (a hugely important foothold in the USA). It has simultaneously seen civil unions legalized in England and Connecticut - an institution many people regard as either marriage under another name, or as a stepping stone towards marriage. The state of California nearly passed gay marriage as well - with only the governor's veto preventing it. This is remarkable progress in a relatively short time. Some people choose to downplay this and instead focus on the comparatively insignificant negative developments. The constitutional bans on gay marriage, for instance - which though unfortunate, I agree, took nothing away from gays that they previously weren't already deprived of. They simply added another impediment, which itself can be - and will be - overturned in the future. So in balance, there's been a significant net gain for gay rights globally.
Is it enough? No, of course not. There are still people being murdered and executed for being gay. But it is an overall improvement, not an overall deterioration. And there is no valid reason (certainly no reason I've read in this forum) to believe this overall improvement will not continue. And, in time, this improvement will inevitably reach the more oppressive societies as their own gay rights movements take root and grow - hopefully aided by the more advantaged homosexuals elsewhere. Global economic, cultural, and technological forces will continue to penetrate national borders, making this improvement a near certainty. You cannot accurately gauge the future of gay people by overly dwelling on how they were treated in past epochs. The limited, confined social and political order of those past periods no longer exists in much of the modern world, and the pockets where it still does will eventually disappear. Here again, with all due respect, you seem to be out of step with the times.
Everything on this topic I propose is meant to encourage and facilitate the rise of gay people. That's one of the points of my whole ‘gay development' spiel. I also believe (actually on this point my certainty is so solid I can say I know) that continued progress - particularly in the more oppressive states - can only occur through engagement (that is, integration.) Segregation might be an answer for you personally, and your own private life, but it is not the answer for gay people as a whole.
One of the recent examples of cultural oppression is the last-moment decisin not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain" in some film theaters in Utah.
This is a perfect example of the difference an attitude and outlook can make. ‘Brokeback Mountain' has been doing very well in theaters wherever it appears. It has achieved general critical acclaim and already has won numerous awards. It is believed to be headed for additional success at the Oscars. This, Vicky, you failed to mention. You, instead, chose to focus only on the negative - turning what is overall a cultural breakthrough into ‘cultural oppression.'
Now certainly one must acknowledge and face the negative, but there's a danger (by habitually ignoring or downplaying the positive) of elevating the negative to a level that simply doesn't exist.
It is true that some theaters in Utah refused to show ‘Brokeback Mountain.' But it is also true that this decision (though heartily approved in some quarters) was received overall with ridicule and disapproval. That point, Vicky, you failed to mention as well. It's always critical to look at the overall picture in order to accurately gauge our situation. If one doesn't, than you are in constant danger of distorting reality; and in extreme cases of even falling into a form of paranoia.
Your request upon K6 living in Tehran reveals that you are well aware of the situation of gays there, but dismiss this knowledge as irrelevant for the debate – why? Are those unhappy creatures not a part of the gay people? Or is the truth too much disturbing for your comfortable world view?
I refer you to Denneny's "Fourth Proposition: Internalized Homophobia." As next you will tell us that all those leather-men, queens and dykes are themeself provoking homophobia and bring us all in danger through their indecent behaviour. As well as those who are flaunting their homosexuality –"is all these kissing and hand-keeping in public really necessary?"
As far as casting aspersions, Vicky, the above examples reveal that you are certainly well-practiced in the technique yourself. Are you seriously attempting here to portray me as homophobic? =))
It would be more productive if you instead addressed some of the points I've been trying to make. Otherwise, my posting these messages is even a bigger waste of time than I first supposed.
Let me be clear. It's not so much that the concept of a gay nation is in and of itself bad, it's that it's impossible to achieve without discouraging gay parenting and procreation - which means, it must therefore discourage full gay development. This is what I object to. (As well as, of course, any trace of state discrimination.) Nothing is more essential for homosexuals than gay development, not even a gay nation. If there is a way around this dilemma, I would be eager to hear it.
And it is not I who has to do any convincing here, Vicky. It is you and your associates. I believe in integration. That is the overwhelming position of the gay community. It is your position of segregation which needs to convince us to change our views. I've pointed out to you some problems with your position. You have not even come close to adequately addressing them. It's as if you prefer to pretend they aren't there, or that they're too minor to bother yourself with.
This approach is not going to convince folks to change their minds. You are contemplating a major project. Your rational behind it has got to be rock solid. Currently, it is not. It is quite weak. And don't forget who's writing this. I'm someone who wrote a book advocating gay-majority communities. It should be quite telling that thus far you've been unable to convince even ME of the merits of a gay nation.
You have a lot of work to do. If you're serious about your project, and serious about attracting supporters, you need to start addressing some of these issues, not just casting them aside as inconvenient annoyances.
Jeff
-
Dear Jeff,
as you wish me to explain my views more detailed, I will try to respond to your question in the best way I can. Though basically posted in this forum, my suggestions are not sufficiently deliberated yet as to be presented in a capacious book; this dereliction of duty I will try to adjust later. For the first, I shall make some things clear and then address some of the controversal topics.
In the preface I wish to ask you, if I may, to lay down the prejudices agains the project I am pleadging for, as these prejudices cause you to overlook the fine details of my statements, details which are essential for correct understanding of the idea. Much of your criticism comes from unjustifiably generalization of my suggestions concerning the gay state, a project which is a partial solution addressing certain problems which can not be solved by convential gay rights activism. This is not a general solution, suitable to solve each and every problem of the gay people. No need to mention that the deliberations concerning these two very different cases might lead to significantly different conclusions, therefore we are very often talking at cross purposes.
Where shall I begin? For the first, let me assure that I am neither an optimist, nor a pessimist. My world view is largely determined by the sense for human history and the developements it is going through the millenia – with rise and fall of states, cultures and entire civilizations. Where once a high culture existed, we face barbary now; were once a barbary was, is the cultural center of the modern civilisation. Nothing is of eternal duration, neither periods of decay, nor the golden ages. Correct analysis of current situation should not cloud our vision in the long term and be aware of possible future developements. You, as a declared optimist seem to trust into the linear progress of the humankind, whereas I think of the progress in form of a helix. As this is a matter of beliefs, we must agree to disagree at this place.
The second thing which I wish to make clear is my views on nationalism. The modern scholars of nationalism generally agree, that the conception of nationalism has changed since the end of the WWII. It is not anymore a matter of superiority of one nation in comparison to others, but rather a consensus that every nation (or a people) has a right for self-determination. Therefore most nationalists of our days do not scamper against other peoples or nations, they instead emphasise the cultural uniqueness of the concerned people and argue that without a certain level of souvereignity this cultural uniqueness invariably will be lost. Whereas one can certainly discuss about the supposed urgent need to rescue any particular culture, one can't deny that at least for the nationalists these particular cultures are very precious. Therefore, in the nationalists world view, every nation should have it's own territorial state; and when this is not possible (in case of multinational / multiethnic states), at least a certain degree of self-determination must be guaranteed, e.g. through partially divergent jurisdiction or special system of representation.
I frankly admit that I am a gay nationalist – therefore my world view is different from you. Whereas an integrationalist by nature is rather intended to downplay the differences between two peoples and instead stresses the similarities, the nationalist by nature performs exactly the opposit way. It is in vain to complain about the habits of the opponents: both are blind on one eye and it would be intellectually oblique to pretend that it wasn's like this. Nevertheless, a thoughtful representative of both parties is able to a certain degree to understand the positions and concerns of his contrahents, if practical questions are discussed. One thing which must be clear is that I of course do not generally condemn straight people, nor do I believe that they are hostile agains us by nature. I simply came to the conclusion that our differences are that much striking, that we can rightfully conceive us as a people ("Volk") and that this Volk is worth of being preserved in ist uniquiness. I do not impose this opinion upon anybody against his/her will, but I was glad to discover that many people feel similar. I feel no urge to persuade every and each gay and lesbian to adopt my views, as this is an impossible task anyways. I simply appellate to those who share same feelings to "gather under my flag" (T. Herzl). You must admit that if a people desires to build up an identity as a Volk, one should let it proceed. Most national movement began this way.
I am well aware that many, at first probably even most homosexual people would refuse the very idea of being a Volk on ist own. Therefore I wish to make the conception of a gay nation clear through the succession of hierarchical sets of individuals, where the next one is a partial sub-set of the previous:
- humankind,
- gay/queer people in the broader sense (homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender ans transsexuals = LGBT community),
- queer nation (syn: Schwulenvolk, gay tribe etc.) – those who feel being a people (a "Volk"),
- national subjects of the gay State.
It is a matter of fact, that the self-estimation of queerness is differing much among the gay people in general: what is a minor difference for one, is a centerpiece of identity to the other. It would be foolish to assume that affiliation to a queer nation and the gay state would suit everybody, we can however discuss about the effects induced by this nation and the gay state. I believe that such a gay state could become not only place of refuge, but also an important part of gay culture in general, catalizing the interlingual and interstatal cooperation of gay people. You suggested that an increase of homophobia could be caused by such a state – why? If the heterosexuals are that much sagacious as you believe they are, there should be no problem at all. We in no way would discriminate more against straights than, let's say Vatican discriminates against US-citizens. They can visit us as much they want, and we would be glad to make business with the rest of the world and cooperate with them where it appears necessary and of good purpose. We simply would make clear that our little territorial ressources and the peculiar state idea do not allow us to naturalize larger numbers of straight people. Not the existence of a gay homeland would stir up homophobia, but on contrary homophobia makes gay state first required.
The national subjects of the gay state will consist of naturalized affiliates of queer nation (see the definition above), independently from any actual residency on the territory of the gay state. The citizens should be free to decide whether they surrender their prior nationality or keep dual citizenship (usefull for those in diaspora). The activities of the government of a gay stay would probably include, but not restrict oneself to:
- domestic administration of the territory and defense,
- funding of gay-related cultural projects in the homeland and in diaspora,
- identity formation policy measures, especially for youngsters among the queer/gay people in the broader sense,
- protection of citizens and affiliates abroad,
- home-taking of persecuted affiliates,
- coordination of activities to strengthen the bonds between the State and Diaspora,
- diplomatic activities on behalf of the queer/gay people in the broader sense.
Straight and bisexual immigrants can be allowed as residents in a limited degree (but regularly not as citizens). The question of nationality of inborn straight children is not satisfactory solved yet, thought there is a variety of practical and human solutions in discussion (here (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.msg143#msg143) and here (http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.msg145#msg145)).
As you can see, the gay state would, as proposed, in no way directly interfere with the interests of integrationalists amongst the queer/gay people in the broader sense. Any legislation or immediate governmental activity of the gay state would affect solely its citizens and affiliates of this entity. However, the gay state would probably try to influence the local and world politics in a way, promising benefits to the entire LGBT community.
If you have some questions, critic or suggestions to the above formulated principles, I will be glad to read and answer them.
Now I would like to take position to some of your previously formulated points. It might appear that I do not give them sufficient attention, but most of them actually are based on the above mentioned philosophical differences and the naturally differing emphasis on positive vs. negative developements. Apparently we know the same facts but value them differently: where you see generall world-wide progresses with minor imperfections, I see a world-wide prevalency of homophobia with temporary and locally limited positive developements. Well, who of us is right? I would say there is more than one reality, depending on the rank of values one has incorporated in the course of one's life. Asked about our likeness to the virtued middle-class married and decent heterosexuals, or to a prostitute swish with all his insufficiencies and infertility, we probably would position us in a different way.
And now some even vaguer assertion that you don't view it as threat because its occurrence, in your eyes, would be below a significant percentile. But what does this mean? If it proved to grow above a certain percentile you WOULD view it as a threat? Would you then oppose it? Allow it? What?
Here the misunderstanding origines from unjustifiably generalization of what I have actually said. Whilst I was clearly talking about the gay state, you are assuming that I am talking about the entire gay world. No need to mention that the deliberations in this two very different cases must lead to significantly different conclusions. The accurate quotation of my position were:
Through all our discussions in this forum I constantly propagated the idea that in any future gay state it should be a basic human right of citizens to have children, if they wish so. I also do not regard any gay parenting as a serious danger for such a state – simply because the effect would be below any percentile significance, in my eyes.
Indeed, if many citizens of a territorial gay state would start bearing a significant amount of children, this state would be in danger to loose its nature as a gay state. No doubt, there would severe controversies arise among citizens about how to deal with such a situation – either to expel the straight children or surrender the idea of the gay state at all and become one state like any other. The first solution would be cruel, the second would be the end of the very idea of a gay state and I were a fool to accept it as satisfying. Therefore I have expressed various ideas in other posts how the situation can be managed in a half-way civilized way:
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.msg143#msg143
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.msg145#msg145
I am forced to quote myself (18.05.2005) to make clear how wrong you are about my views:
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
Well, let's go on:
The fact that the social climate has improved for homosexuals over the past 50 years is no accident. It coincides with the formation and growth of an organized and active gay rights movement. While homosexuals have certainly existed all through history, and same-sex relations have been tolerated at certain times and in certain areas, to my knowledge there has never been anything remotely close to the gay rights movement we have today. So yes, I do use the past half century or so as the basis of my argument. What do you prefer to use, the preceding millennia when there was no such gay rights movement?
I prefer to use the experiences gathered over millenia. There might have been no gay rights movement before, but there were gay rights, as well as same-sex marriage. Yes, there are progresses in some western countries (who has ever denied that fact?), but in the rest of the world (especially in Africa and the Middle East) the governments have in the same 50 years increased the punishments for homosexuality – including death penalty. And this is a trend which is as well continuing, especially in the last 5 years.
The past couple years have seen legalized gay marriage in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts (a hugely important foothold in the USA). It has simultaneously seen civil unions legalized in England and Connecticut - an institution many people regard as either marriage under another name, or as a stepping stone towards marriage. The state of California nearly passed gay marriage as well - with only the governor's veto preventing it. This is remarkable progress in a relatively short time. Some people choose to downplay this and instead focus on the comparatively insignificant negative developments. The constitutional bans on gay marriage, for instance - which though unfortunate, I agree, took nothing away from gays that they previously weren't already deprived of. They simply added another impediment, which itself can be - and will be - overturned in the future. So in balance, there's been a significant net gain for gay rights globally.
Certainly it is a very good success if gay people can marry. Who ever denied that? Yes, in Massachussets it's possible to marry, but these marriages are not recognezed in the rest of the country, isn't this true? In Spain it is possible to marry as well - but try to walk through Madrid in a late evening, keeping hands with your boyfriend. No doubt it will be an experience you will never forget.
The developement in the US, as far as I can jugge it, does not justify your thesis of quick preogress with "insignificant negative developments". It is to wish for the Americans that they re-gain their democracy back, but what is happening now is an obvious conservative counter-revolution. In a country where millions of people devote significant amount of their time and money in order to "fight homosexual agenda" it is very doubtfull, if the achieved successes could be sustained. I remember you on the fate of the ban of death penalty. Any explicit constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is not solely a minor nuisance, but instead homophobia put to the level of a state goal. The practical effects will be an increasing numbers of fag bashings, as all the bullies will feel encouraged through the state.
Is it enough? No, of course not. There are still people being murdered and executed for being gay. But it is an overall improvement, not an overall deterioration. And there is no valid reason (certainly no reason I've read in this forum) to believe this overall improvement will not continue. And, in time, this improvement will inevitably reach the more oppressive societies as their own gay rights movements take root and grow - hopefully aided by the more advantaged homosexuals elsewhere. Global economic, cultural, and technological forces will continue to penetrate national borders, making this improvement a near certainty. You cannot accurately gauge the future of gay people by overly dwelling on how they were treated in past epochs. The limited, confined social and political order of those past periods no longer exists in much of the modern world, and the pockets where it still does will eventually disappear. Here again, with all due respect, you seem to be out of step with the times.
Don't get me wrong – all the achieved progresses are wonderfull and a result of hard work by many gay rights activists. But these remarkable progresses do not represent any global developement like you are suggesting. They are what they are – partial liberalisation within the western civilization – not less and not more. What makes you so sure that especially our generation is living on the breach of times? Does anything in the world politics back your thesis about the golden age from now on and till the end of the time? More and more countries come into posession of nuclear weapons, militarization of space is just a question of time, AIDS is depopulating entire landscapes in Africa, the climatic change will pretty soon result in wars for water – and so on. The recent invasion of Iraque proves how little political insight the so-called "leaders of the free world" posess and suggest little good for the future in general. To prevent your objections: Yes, I am aware that life in North America and in Europe is very comfortable and fool of plesure, but does this change anything on the above facts? I wish I could share your optimism, but I cann't.
It is true that some theaters in Utah refused to show ‘Brokeback Mountain.' But it is also true that this decision (though heartily approved in some quarters) was received overall with ridicule and disapproval. That point, Vicky, you failed to mention as well. It's always critical to look at the overall picture in order to accurately gauge our situation. If one doesn't, than you are in constant danger of distorting reality; and in extreme cases of even falling into a form of paranoia.
Paranoia? May be. May be not – I could as well suggest you of being an ostrich, but you probably would not like the comparison. Do you seriously expect from a gay rights activist to explain on each and every step that "there are of course not only violations of our civil and human rights, but also remarkable progresses and actualy we get beaten up not that often like 20 years ago". Please forgive me the irony, but I find it grotesque to insist on talking about things which we finally were permitted to do or to posess, when at the same time there is so much to fight for. Beg you pardon, when some of the movies would refuse to show "Schindler's list" in similar manner, would you be the same way calm and considerate? So why not be the same way resolute when gays are the one oppressed? I truly do not understand this decency, Jeff – and I try hard.
Let me be clear. It's not so much that the concept of a gay nation is in and of itself bad, it's that it's impossible to achieve without discouraging gay parenting and procreation - which means, it must therefore discourage full gay development. This is what I object to. [..] This approach is not going to convince folks to change their minds. You are contemplating a major project. Your rational behind it has got to be rock solid. Currently, it is not. It is quite weak. And don't forget who's writing this. I'm someone who wrote a book advocating gay-majority communities. It should be quite telling that thus far you've been unable to convince even ME of the merits of a gay nation.
Jeff, in no way do I disregard your critics – insofar they meet the point. Of course it is difficult to critic a project accurately when there is no elaborately written and comprehensive treatise on the idea. But may be it is worth then to wait with generallized critics of assumed positions? Also it seems to me that especially authors of specific theories (like your pleadge for gay procreation) are by times somewhat reluctant to acknowledge other people's ideas, if they do not exactly match their own theories. In a generally loving society with sexual identity/orientation being no issue, cross-couple kids were certainly an enrichment for the parents, no matter gay or straight. In such society gay culture would have no reason to exist, either.
The idea of gay procreation does seem for some reason to have provoked you, particularly the view that gay procreation marks an advancement in gay development. I tried to clearly and briefly state my case supporting this.
The idea of gays reproducing themself is not especially provoking for me, but the notion that it should be a generall advancement of the gay people is not a favorit of mine. Those who wish it should do it, but claims on advanced developement are at least disputable. The realities of gay people are very different on this planet, and I am most sure that many of them would feel encouraged by your theses. But ones with differing realities, especially the less fortunate ones who must flee their countries, could be served the best with a prosperious gay homeland and a government willing and able to protect them. A cooperation with a vital and well-organized diaspora would additionally provide us stronger legitimacy on the international arena.
Besides, yesterday ILGA's application for joining the UN's Economic and Social Council was refused with voices of e.g. USA, Iran, Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon. 2700 NGO's are reported to be officially accredited at the UN, not a single one of them representing the interests of homosexuals.
-
Besides, yesterday ILGA's application for joining the UN's Economic and Social Council was refused with voices of e.g. USA, Iran, Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon. 2700 NGO's are reported to be officially accredited at the UN, not a single one of them representing the interests of homosexuals.
And the Canadian Conservative Party won the federal election of yesterday january 23,and shall form a minority government.It is more or less similar
to the US Republican Party.The group I represent in alt.politics.micronations has already commented there and on the subject by way of its French
language sector of activity.Upon request by the GLR,a translation shall be provided.
K6
-
Where shall I begin? For the first, let me assure that I am neither an optimist, nor a pessimist. My world view is largely determined by the sense for human history and the developements it is going through the millenia – with rise and fall of states, cultures and entire civilizations.
That is entirely relevant to a German,more generally to an European,or to a Canadian.But it is not to an American.Americans regard history as irrelevant.They know besides little about it,much the same way they are not well informed about foreign countries or cultures.They live in the
present and in America,and ignore the rest.They never knew as a nation what is adversity,and therefore cannot understand the skepticism of
an European about human progress.Whereas such a skepticism is not only understood at once but shared as wel by a Canadian like my humble
self.
K6
-
Hi Vicky,
Thank you for your fuller explanation. I appreciate it. In response, let me begin by repeating that I have no objection to any gay-majority nation as long as it allows for the full spectrum of gay development, and doesn't discriminate against any of its people.
I guess our primary disagreement continues to be over the power and potential of gay parenting and procreation. My belief is that even a state which starts off with 100% homosexual adults is going to fairly quickly start producing children. The gay-friendly environment will only encourage such family life. Lesbians in particular will likely start this occurrence, and once it starts other individuals and couples (of either gender) will observe this and start desiring children and families of their own. My evidence for this is what is already occurring. It's undeniable that gay people are having children, what is debatable is how many will ultimately do so. In other words, where will it cap off?
This phenomenon is clearly the Achilles's Heel of any gay-nation project. But it need not be viewed as a negative development. A group's ability (or desire) to create life is a social advancement over a group's inability (or lack of desire) to create life. Reason: because it strengthens that group's ability to survive into the future by 1) biologically reproducing itself, thereby removing its dependency on others for its very existence, and by 2) helping to intimately shape the next generation's sense of ethics and morality through the parent-child bond, thereby helping to prevent attititudes threatening to that group. Procreation is a uniformly human possibility. It is no more the private domain of heterosexuals than love is, or the forming of relationships. Therefore, instead of viewing it as a potential negative, and fretting over it as a threat to gay majority, it can be viewed positively, and welcomed as an advance in gay development. As in most things, it all depends on one's attitude. And the wonderful thing about attitudes is that they can sometimes be changed.
If the negative avenue is taken; that is, if gay procreation is viewed by the state as a potential threat and measures are put into place to either discourage it, or to discriminate against the resultant children who might happen to be heterosexual, this will result in much social unrest. Heterosexuals are not the brow-beaten, disorganized folks that gay people have largely been through history. They constitute the majority in every current nation on the planet. Heterosexuals in any gay-majority nation will be well aware of that. It would not take them long to organize the world's first 'Straight Rights Movement.' Such a movement would attract many gay allies as well, both from within and without the gay-majority nation. From within, the core of gay allies would likely be their own families and friends. From without, the potential would be far greater. Gays in other nations, well aware - through their own experiences - of the rights of minorities to fair treatment, would largely support the heterosexual rights movement. Under such relentless pressure, sooner or later, all forms of state discrimination against non-gays would fall.
Therefore it is futile, in my opinion, to even consider anything less than full equality for all inhabitants of any nation. If, under these non-discriminatory conditions, gay people remain the majority in a nation than that would be fine.
Jeff
-
I guess our primary disagreement continues to be over the power and potential of gay parenting and procreation. My belief is that even a state which starts off with 100% homosexual adults is going to fairly quickly start producing children. The gay-friendly environment will only encourage such family life. Lesbians in particular will likely start this occurrence, and once it starts other individuals and couples (of either gender) will observe this and start desiring children and families of their own.
This will not happen if gay political independence also coincides with the secession of one sex from the other.Not that I advocate such a radical
course of action.But I will advocate it if necessary,when necessary.Certain factors might besides not depend upon us,like current gay migrating trends from intolerant countries to tolerant ones.There is almost no lesbian migration in that respect,while their exists a gay male one.A gay State founded upon immigration will either be exclusively or overwhelmingly male.Thus with no sex ratio - and likely also no attitude of compromise with the hethro lifestyle - allowing for the re-establishing of reproduction as we know it in heterosexual societies.
K6
-
This will not happen if gay political independence also coincides with the secession of one sex from the other. Not that I advocate such a radical course of action. But I will advocate it if necessary, when necessary.
Wonderful, K6, not only would we then have to endure charges that this proposed gay nation is heterophobic, but sexist as well. Who's the next undesirables to be excluded from this marvelous nation you're contemplating? Gay males who have or want children? Those who don't sufficiently fall in line with what your particular definition of gay is?
You can't enforce a uniform ideology on people any more than you can enforce sterility upon them.
Jeff
-
Wonderful, K6, not only would we then have to endure charges that this proposed gay nation is heterophobic, but sexist as well. Who's the next undesirables to be excluded from this marvelous nation you're contemplating? Gay males who have or want children? Those who don't sufficiently fall in line with what your particular definition of gay is?
My political business is gay separatism.The definition of a gay I use is consequent to that aim.Individuals who have descendants or heterosexual
interests aren`t gays as far as I am concerned.The issue of their eventual expulsion from a gay independent and sovereign Republic does not arises
insofar as I a involved.For they will have been locked out of the gay national community long before the process of secession is completed or even undertaken.
K6
-
Therefore it is futile, in my opinion, to even consider anything less than full equality for all inhabitants of any nation. If, under these non-discriminatory conditions, gay people remain the majority in a nation than that would be fine.
Well, at this point we shall make clear that "inhabitants" not necessarily means "citizens". It is a common use in any modern state to make a difference between its national subjects and national subjects of other nations who happen to live temporarily or permanently on the territory of the state. Every sovereign nation can establish rules for foreigners, inclusive permissions or restrictions on taking residency on the state's territory. We can do alike - we can allow foreigners to live among us, or deny them this right.
If we shall constitutionally prescribe that citizenship can be only granted to homosexuals above certain age (let's say 16), we will simply do what other countries do as well: we define criteria for gaining the citizenship, not less and not more.
If citizens desire to have children, they must be aware that these children do not automatically become citizens. This is also not unusual in other countries, when children are e.g. born in a bi-national relationship. Some countries automatically grant citizenship to all children born on their territory, some countries automatically grant citizenship to all descendants of their national subjects, and very often these legislations collide. It might be a hardship by times for such couples, but parents are generally themself responsible for the correct status of their children. In practice, if we shall agree upon dual citizenship as a general rule, then parents with dual citizenship are best advised to apply for the other citizenship for their children.
The above regulations seem to me necessary for preserving the gay nature of the state. They will certainly cause some discomfort for citizens with procreative wishes - but you must agree that in any society members are generally obliged to be considerate of others as well. Every society has a set of regulations pursuing a sustainable development of this particular society - e.g. to be economical with water or use public transportation instead of an own car. The limitation of the gay state will be - by its very nature - the circumstance that it can't sustain with growing heterosexual population. I can't tell you the critical percentage of procreation vs immigration, but above some critical procreative rate the society would be thrown off balance. Not our heterophobia, but bitter necessity will force us to deny automatically citizenship to the descendants of our citizens. Individual rights are a very precious good, but collective rights and interests must not be neglected completely as well. It will be a challenge for the politics to find a sustainable compromise between those interests, and I think my suggestions on this issue are moderate and convenient.
As for the procreation in general - of course everyone is free to get so many children as he/she wishes - and each of these children shall be welcome. I only appeal to your sense of reality - even prevalently heterosexual societies in developed countries regard it as absolutely sensible to limit the amount of children to 2 per woman - not by any legal restrictions or sanctions, but by the power of insight and responsibility of its citizens. Gays and lesbians living in the Diaspora shall feel free to get as many children as they want, but inside of the gay state they shall consider the entailing problems for the state and these children - and I think they will act wise. As the citizenship of the gay state will be acquired by adult homosexuals by choice, they will willingly recognize these few rules as necessary for the preservation of the state.
-
Well, at this point we shall make clear that "inhabitants" not necessarily means "citizens". It is a common use in any modern state to make a difference between its national subjects and national subjects of other nations who happen to live temporarily or permanently on the territory of the state. Every sovereign nation can establish rules for foreigners, inclusive permissions or restrictions on taking residency on the state's territory. We can do alike - we can allow foreigners to live among us, or deny them this right.
The only non-gays I`d see present on the territory of a gay State would be tourists,cooperants or diplomats.The same way I was sometimes
asked to fill a form an hour or so before the landing of my flight in a foreign country,in which I undertook not to work while present there,
non-gay visitors would sign an immigration form in which they would undertake to have no reproductive activity while in a gay Republic.We could waive the visa requirement for close relatives or persons with an invitation from a gay resident and citizen.The basic characteristic of independence is that we would choose the non-gays we are interested in dealing with,and exclude the problematic elements of the heterosexual societies without any possibility of appeal.Older non-gays beyond the age of reproduction,and with gay descendants already citizens and residents of the gay State,could be made permanent foreign residents.We have to take in consideration here those heterosexual parents who protected their gay kids,who have thus rendered a service to the gay nation,and who deserve a reward for their contribution.
K6
-
If we shall constitutionally prescribe that citizenship can be only granted to homosexuals above certain age (let's say 16), we will simply do what other countries do as well: we define criteria for gaining the citizenship, not less and not more.
I`d suggess the following:
1) All human beings to be regarded as without any sexual orientation at birth.
2) All individuals before the onset of puberty to be regarded as minors and as without effective or established sexual orientation.
3) All individuals from the onset of puberty and capacity for participation in reproduction and rearing of other human beings to be regarded as adults,and sorted into heterosexuals and gays.In case of doubt,the individual to be regarded as heterosexual.The age of majority could be set
at 15 or 16 at the lowest,or at 18 at the latest.
4) A general obligation,as a sort of gay international and unilateral duty towards mankind,to protect the interests of minors,not extending though to the obligation of greeting or receiving them on gay sovereign soil.
K6
-
And the Canadian Conservative Party won the federal election of yesterday january 23,and shall form a minority government.It is more or less similar to the US Republican Party.
Elsewhere you have commented on the ignorance of Americans as regards other countries' history and political situations. It is, therefore, my sad duty to inform you that the CPC is nothing at all like the US Republican Party. Just for the record, the CPC is roughly similar to the center of the US Democrat Party. In Canada, people who openly espouse the current views of the Republican Party are prosecuted for hate crimes -- and rightly so.
-
That is entirely relevant to a German,more generally to an European,or to a Canadian.But it is not to an American.Americans regard history as irrelevant.They know besides little about it,much the same way they are not well informed about foreign countries or cultures.They live in the
present and in America,and ignore the rest.They never knew as a nation what is adversity,and therefore cannot understand the skepticism of
an European about human progress.Whereas such a skepticism is not only understood at once but shared as wel by a Canadian like my humble
self.
While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history.
A Gay nationality is what you folks are trying to achieve, is it not? Knee-jerk prejudices based on national origin won't help in that. Puffery won't either... humble, or not.
-
Elsewhere you have commented on the ignorance of Americans as regards other countries' history and political situations. It is, therefore, my sad duty to inform you that the CPC is nothing at all like the US Republican Party. Just for the record, the CPC is roughly similar to the center of the US Democrat Party. In Canada, people who openly espouse the current views of the Republican Party are prosecuted for hate crimes -- and rightly so.
The conservative party in Canada has the same agenda as the US Republican party as far as gays at least are concerned.It may not be obvious at
first glance because it operates in a different environment,where it could encounter opposition on a large scale and,yes,also face prosecution for
hate crimes.It therefore displays a leader with a baby face,who distracts us from the sight and statements of his other associates,present and past.That`s how things happen when dealing with a population who,for at least a part,fears conservatives and is not passive towards conservatism as is the population of another country.The packaging is different,but the contents is the same.It is better not to believe the canadian conservatives,especially should they say that they are different from their US Republican colleagues,because they aren`t.And if the current conservative canadian government does not move to abolish the recently adopted gay marriage,it is thanks to its minority as a government and not to its good nature.It it formed the majority in the parliement,it wouldn`t be stopped by any hate crime statute.
K6
-
While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history.
US gays pain and toil under the common fate of the gay people.Certainly,they are capable of developping tactics suited to their environment,which ressembles more to the 18th century than to the 21st.But I would have been quite surprised to see them as the first to establish an internet discussion group about gay political independence and Statehood.People who read no books about history won`t encounter the idea of self-determination,and won`t conceive of its possible application to our situation as gays.They might also oppose it,and be in this case among the first to do so,though and to be fair to US gays it is rather a sexual minority other than gay and very common in the United States which then will be involved.
K6
-
How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow. And to compound my error by not considering the prospect that only Europeans and Canadians read books on history-- unforgivable on my part, many apologies.
-
How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow.
My original point consisted only in informing Mogul about the deficiency of an historical and geopolitical approach to gay self-determination with
American participants.Not in insulting,lecturing or even less guiding the said participants.There are strong points in the American character which
I will not miss to point out when the occasion arises.The merely sexual character of the gay minority in the US is not really a local phenomenon.
Gays in many liberal countries,including Canada,have devoted too much time at developping the erotic aspect of their sexual orientation,which has thus grown to monstruous proportions.Whereas their political and organizational aspects remainded underdevelopped,without even a movement
seeking political independence.
K6
-
While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history.
People who read no books about history won`t encounter the idea of self-determination,and won`t conceive of its possible application to our situation as gays.
How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow. And to compound my error by not considering the prospect that only Europeans and Canadians read books on history-- unforgivable on my part, many apologies.
To contribute my humble opinion to this debate (which was overdue anyway ::)): Rumors about Americans being unable to read, write and speak in whole sentences seem to be strongly exaggerated. =)) Despite the wide-spread opinion, many Americans indeed do read books and even learn foreign languages. Some of them were even reported to visit the city library by times. How comes now that Europeans and Canadians often have such prejudices about Americans? Well, Europeans and Canadians watch to much American TV – and judge from idiots on the screen about the entire American population. It must be said in our defence, however, that solely Americans themselves are responsible for:
- people who they let into their TV studios (incl. their presidents); and
- the omission to watch Canadian and European TV in turn.
A nation which brings out such pantry cooks as we are lucky to know, cannot be that much hopeless. >:)
As for the history as such, one thing is true – Americans indeed do not know what a total war on their own territory might be. No hurrican, no single terroristic attack can be compared with the experience of an area-wide sheelfire, with entire countries being almost wept out from the landscape. In Europe we know from our parents and grandparents how it was during the nazi time and under communist regume, how people were haunted from one edge of the word to another – and this is an experience almost all European families have in common. It's not easy to be an optimist if your complete family was sent to Sibiria, disowned 3 times within 75 years, one grandfather fallen in the age of 21, another spent 15 years in Gulag and so on – the list is long. This is a story almost every European can tell you about his own family with only minor variations. Therefore it is indeed difficult for us to share the optimism so wide-spread among most Americans – we simply know it better.
On the other side, one can not seriously claim that American gays can learn from others how to act properly. It's simply a matter of fact that American gays were pioneers in the post-war gay rights movement. They were also the first to deal with the AIDS epidemic – and have lost the dynamics in the eighties. From the eighties, Europe fulfilled a remarkable developement in gay rights and seems to be the one to lead now. Not that Europe were homogenously progressive, but the most liberal countries like Netherlands lay on our continent. From those pioneers we all learn and get our inspirations.
The same way I was sometimes asked to fill a form an hour or so before the landing of my flight in a foreign country,in which I undertook not to work while present there, non-gay visitors would sign an immigration form in which they would undertake to have no reproductive activity while in a gay Republic.
Do you mean "reproductive activity" = male-female sex? I think everybody can reproduce himself how much it pleases him/her with whoever possible –what harm shall happen to the gay state from this? And how shall we come to such a thing as to prohibit somebody from having sex? By times you make me fear, K6! =))
We could waive the visa requirement for close relatives or persons with an invitation from a gay resident and citizen.The basic characteristic of independence is that we would choose the non-gays we are interested in dealing with,and exclude the problematic elements of the heterosexual societies without any possibility of appeal.Older non-gays beyond the age of reproduction,and with gay descendants already citizens and residents of the gay State,could be made permanent foreign residents.We have to take in consideration here those heterosexual parents who protected their gay kids,who have thus rendered a service to the gay nation,and who deserve a reward for their contribution.
Certainly very sensible suggestion. Generally I would pleadge for the right of permanent residency for dependents of citizens – be it their old parents or their minor children.
3) All individuals from the onset of puberty and capacity for participation in reproduction and rearing of other human beings to be regarded as adults,and sorted into heterosexuals and gays.In case of doubt,the individual to be regarded as heterosexual.The age of majority could be set at 15 or 16 at the lowest,or at 18 at the latest.
Why "sort" them? Let's say there is simply no right for citizenship by birth, instead the right for permanent residency for minor children of citizens untill they become full-age? The gay ones can subsequently apply for citizenship. Also I would suggest that between application and naturalization sufficient time shall pass; instead "in doubt" the applicant shall be counted as gay (if he himself assures being so). Who shall anyway determine the "gayness" of the person not engaged in any sexual activities? I think it should suffice to keep the possibility to withdrow the citizenship if it comes clearly out that the applicant provided wrong informations about his sexual orientation.
See also:
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=17.0
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.0
-
Why "sort" them? Let's say there is simply no right for citizenship by birth, instead the right for permanent residency for minor children of citizens untill they become full-age?
For clarification and in my mind,the status of gay is the equivalent to the one of citizen.I am entirely in agreement with the idea of no status of
gay (and thus of citizen) by birthright.Each individual must earn it,and cannot ow it to the deeds of his parents.I disagree on another hand with
any idea of maintaining the institution or structure of the family on gay sovereign soil.If an when reproduction restarts,it will be solely through cooperatives using modern reproductive technology.And the children will be the property of the cooperative constituted by a group of adults,
more or less like in the early Israeli Kibbutz system.There will be no more private initiative in matters having to do with human reproduction,under
the general principle that it takes a village to produce a citizen.
K6
-
Do you mean "reproductive activity" = male-female sex?
With possibility of conception,yes.Without possibility of conception,no.Without possibility of conception would include 1) with contraceptives or
2) a couple having one member sterile or beyond the age of reproduction.Heterosexuality among non-gays may be recreative,but must confer
no power (read here *political power*) in matters of demographics (which gays do not possess as individuals and in the same fashion as
heterosexuals).
K6
-
I disagree on another hand with any idea of maintaining the institution or structure of the family on gay sovereign soil.If an when reproduction restarts,it will be solely through cooperatives using modern reproductive technology.And the children will be the property of the cooperative constituted by a group of adults, more or less like in the early Israeli Kibbutz system.There will be no more private initiative in matters having to do with human reproduction,under the general principle that it takes a village to produce a citizen.
There is indeed no reason why society shouldn't accept any new child as a "communal" issue. Such model for child-rearing is probably more easily realized in a village than in a highly urbanized area. The "communal" child-raising will probably also influence its tendency to remain the "communal property" in older age and make poliandrie a more common phenomenon. =))
-
There is indeed no reason why society shouldn't accept any new child as a "communal" issue. Such model for child-rearing is probably more easily realized in a village than in a highly urbanized area. The "communal" child-raising will probably also influence its tendency to remain the "communal property" in older age and make poliandrie a more common phenomenon. =))
Polyandry could originate in an issue having to do with public order.I have no precise idea on how we gays would congregate in a situation of political independence and freedom.But disputes could arise between various informal clans or tribes over the possession of this of that most
handsome individual.In the novel of history and fiction over which I have worked from 1986 to 1990,the matter is tackled.The arrival or immigrants of the teenager group led to pitched battles and riots over their appropriation by rival clans of the same age group already settled in the country.Ports and railroad stations often became scenes of disorder and rampage.The then gay state had to intervene in registering individuals under specific clans or tribes,in order to avoid further disputes of that sort.
K6
-
A minor part of the debate was splitted and merged into this topic:
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=196.0
This is a routine procedure with the intention to keep particular topics close to their initial issue.
8[
-
I have posted a reply to a definition of "gay" by GPR in alt.politics.micronations (http://groups.google.de/group/alt.politics.micronations/browse_thread/thread/2ed8c0dc8c8e0d1b/961cb788a905088b?#961cb788a905088b). It is mostly my personal contribution to the problematics of being gay/something different. Though it might look like a code, it is simply a primitive approach to the issue, ordered in a way it seemed logical to me.
K6, "Your definitions are very effective in preventing any heterosexual (or suspected heterosexual) from fraudulently assuming the precious name "gay", this much is true. On the other hand, using such tight definitions would inevitably cause exclusion of many factual
homosexuals from being "gay" contrary to their declared will and self-perception.
My personal definitions would be as following:
§ 1. Human beings have an identity, which first allows them to percept themeselves as persons.
§ 2. Each human being creates his/her/its identity by him/her/itselfe, depending on the incorporated values and on historical, ethnic, gender and sexual background.
§ 3. The human identity is subject of permanent development and re-construction, since humans learn in the pace of their lives and may re-think their values with progressed knowledges and life experience.
§ 4. Human beings can be born as biological males, females or intersexuals (hermaphrodites).
§ 5. The intersexuality is a complex issue and is subject of current medical research. The state has a duty to protect intersexual individuals from operative treatment directed towards arbitrary adjustment either to the "male" or "female" habitus. Due to its complexity, the issue ought be treated separately.
§ 6. The cultural definition as a "man" or a "woman" is a societal invention, connected to certain social roles, and does not entirely correspond with the biological appearence of human beings.
§ 7. In case the self-perception as a "man" or a "woman" is contrary to the biological gender of the individual, the person is called transgender (transsexual). Any fancy attitude of wearing specific cloth or body decoration does not classify the person as being of particular gender.
§ 8. An individual is free to identify his/her/itself as a "man" or a "woman", as somewhere in between, as being of the "third sex", or completely refuse to assume a gender identity.
§ 9. Intersexuals and transgender ought be treated separetely, therefore §§ 10-13 do not apply to them.
§ 10. Men and women typically can be sexually attracted to ether the opposite sex, to their own sex, or to both sexes. They can be accordingly roughly classified as heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals.
§11. The actual sexual behavior does not necessarily correspond with the inner sexual orientation of a person. Juvenile homosexuals are often socialized as heterosexuals and pressed into heterosexual behaviour, inclusive heterosexual marriage and "natural" procreation. Homosexual acts between intrinsic heterosexuals (as they occur e.g. in prisons or in the army) do not entail re-classification of these individuals as homo- or bisexuals.
§ 12. Male and female homosexuals who are aware of their sexuality and regard it to be an important part of their identity, are gays or lesbians respectively. Previous heterosexual experiences, descendency or closeted lifestile in strongly hostile environment do not constitute impedimenta to being gay or lesbian. Homosexuals who participate in activities directed against homo-, bi-, intersexuals and transgenders as a group are not gay or lesbian.
§ 13. Being gay or lesbian makes an individual eligible to gain affiliation to a territorial or non-territorial gay-lesbian political entity ("gay state"). The affiliation requires assertion of being gay or lesbian and an avowal towards the gay state.
§ 14. Bisexuals, intersexuals and transgender can gain affiliation to a territorial or non-territorial gay-lesbian political entity ("gay state"), if their individual case fits rather into homosexual pattern than into heterosexual one. They must provide an avowal towards the gay state as well.
§ 15. Human beings have the right to freely discover their sexuality complying to their individual biological and mental development. Pressing on a child to correspond with pre-defined sexual role behavior violates the right for sexual self-determination. Sexual intercourse with pre-adolescent individuals violates their right for sexual self-determination and might cause severe emotional distress or serious mental problems. Enforcing sexual intercourse against the will of a person is a very severe crime. Offenders shall be prosecuted considering the age of the victim and the actual harm they have caused.
§16. The gay state must provide asylum to any person persecuted because of sexual orientation or sexual identity, even if this person does not fulfill the conditions for becoming a citizen.
"
-
§ 10. Men and women typically can be sexually attracted to ether the opposite sex, to their own sex, or to both sexes. They can be accordingly roughly classified as heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals.
The category improperly called "bisexual" is not recognized by the GPR.The GPR sorts all adults as heterosexuals or gays,based on the exclusivity or predominance of heterosexuality or of homosexuality.Failing an explanation in a situation of incorrectly labled bisexuality,heterosexuality is regarded as predominant.Minors might be regarded as without precise or settled sexual orientation.Definition of a minor according to the normative system of the GPR: "Is to be regarded as a minor anyone who has not yet reached the stage where he is in position to assume the reproduction,the custody and the rearing of human beings" (Code of the GPR,art.73,law of march14,1979).No specific age has been established for the transition between minority and majority,because the onset of puberty could vary depending upon environmental factors or evolution.
K6
-
§ 13. Being gay or lesbian makes an individual eligible to gain affiliation to a territorial or non-territorial gay-lesbian political entity ("gay state"). The affiliation requires assertion of being gay or lesbian and an avowal towards the gay state.
In the GPR,it is a bit different.Allegiance towards the homosexual orientation is required,either in an exclusive or predominant manner.An individual could have never actually been involved in homosexual intercourse,and yet be regarded as gay.But then,there must exist deeds pointing out to a refusal pure and simple to adhere in any way to heterosexuality,caused by observable or detectable homosexual tendencies.
K6
-
[..] An individual could have never actually been involved in homosexual intercourse,and yet be regarded as gay. [..]
Entirely agreed. The feelings are decisive.
[..] But then,there must exist deeds pointing out to a refusal pure and simple to adhere in any way to heterosexuality,caused by observable or detectable homosexual tendencies.
This point requires more detailed explanation. What kind of deeds and "observable or detectable homosexual tendencies" do you mean? Beyound refusal to engage in heterosexual activities of procreation, what else can a virgine gay man bring for his defence if his gayness is questioned by a jealous neighbour or a malicious political opponent?
:=SU
-
Entirely agreed. The feelings are decisive.
This point requires more detailed explanation. What kind of deeds and "observable or detectable homosexual tendencies" do you mean? Beyound refusal to engage in heterosexual activities of procreation, what else can a virgine gay man bring for his defence if his gayness is questioned by a jealous neighbour or a malicious political opponent?
:=SU
Gays being humans,a flaw would indeed exist in the person implementing a definition of who is gay,whatever that definition might be.But the absence of any definition would pave the way to even more arbitrary decisions.Heterosexuals have no definition of who is an heterosexual,and
they do not really need one: they have the numbers and hold the political power.Whomever they decide not to regard as heterosexual is not
heterosexual in their eyes.Without appeal.
K6