GLR Forum
General Forum => Gay Homeland - General discussions => Topic started by: K6 on Sat, Jun 03, 2006, 03:35
-
Scenario 1: We completely secede from the opposite sex.In which case,we may include members from non-gay sexual minorities,such as the improperly called bisexuals.Their presence in an environment where only one sex is represented will be without negative consequence for our interest or political independence.They won`t be in a position to reconstitute,by the sheer weight of their own hethro demographic dynamics,another hethro regime and State.The improperly called bisexuals - actually hethro dissidents more than gay opponents - might of course not want to participate in such a scenario.Or live under such conditions.
Scenario 2: We include both sexes in absolute conditions of equality.But we exclude all members from non-gay sexual minorities.The opposite sex might not accept such a deal,so different from the life of farniente it carries on under the hethro regime.We might thus have a sex ratio very different from the one of an hethro society.The opposite sex will be in minority.Or it will be absent,like in Scenario 1.
K6
-
Scenario 3: We gather as many gays and lesbians under our flag as possible, allow the willing transgenders and bisexuals to participate and do the best to make us all as happy as possible. Those who will see their interests not served by emigration to a gay administrated territory, might participate in national unification in Diaspora, being involved and welcome where they naturally belong to. Unity and inclusion is our devise, not fragmentation and exclusion! The meaning of gay nationalism is not as much about the separation from "abhorrent heterosexuals", as it is about the establishment of a national unity of our people - with a gay state being only a part of the entire construction called nation. A gay state, who would pick out only those LGBT refugees who appear "ideologically pure" will be not worth of its name.
-
A gay state, who would pick out only those LGBT refugees who appear "ideologically pure" will be not worth of its name.
It is not a matter of ideology,but of sexual orientation and sometimes of identity and condition laced with egoistic interest.What is the sex ratio of the group of regulars of this forum ? The opposite sex is either absent or in minority here,and by the fact of no exclusion from your part.I am trying not to displease the "G" element of the LGBT political equation because,to tell you frankly,it is the only one I trust with respect to a project of gay self-determination in a geopolitical form.The others,I simply do not trust.They cannot participate in any undertaking nor give any assurances which would exceed their heterosexual interests or commitments.A gay independentist movement,as a gay future State,have no obligation to protect or represent hethro interests or privileges.The protection of such interests and privileges is the sole responsibility of hethro governments and States.
K6
-
Scenario 3: We gather as many gays and lesbians under our flag as possible, allow the willing transgenders and bisexuals to participate and do the best to make us all as happy as possible.
I wouldn`t mind incorrectly labelled bisexuals as tourists in a country of ours.Sex tourists they would probably be and we would pocket their
money through young and handsome "tourist guides".Not mentionning their confidences on the pillow of which we could take note one way
or another.Sex tourism by non-gays in a gay country could also lead to quintessential human triangular relations and tragedies.I see the kind of
movie they could make out of it.I imagine the previews as such: "The happy family with a wife and three children he had founded" (here
family scene) "Then his arrival for the first time in that mysterious gay country for a short business trip" (here,airport scene with the rainbow
flag by a huge air traffic control tower) "The young guide provided to him by the gay government,with whom he fells in love" (some character
like Leonardo DiCaprio in the role of the guide) "The passionate affair" (here,I prefer to leave the scene to the imagination of the reader) "One
trip was not enough,and soon he came back,never able to choose between his family and the boy of his dreams.But soon fate caught up with
him" (argument with his boyfriend of the gay Republic,who demands that he make up his mind) "This adventure was to lead only in a dead end"(gunshot behind the door of an hotel room,scene of suicide) "A human tragedy of our times,playing now at a theater near you".
K6
-
I wouldn`t mind incorrectly labelled bisexuals as tourists in a country of ours.Sex tourists they would probably be and we would pocket their
money through young and handsome "tourist guides".
This was a good one! ;D I hardly believe that the young and handsome would enjoy the prospective of passing their sourly earned money to the government.
There is indeed a majority of gay men in this forum - but this does not necessarily mean that lesbians are a priori less interested in separatism. It might simply mean that they prefer to spend time off-line with some other usefull things - reading books, painting or whatever. There was a kind of lesbian separatist movement in the seventies when the "wimin" wanted to create their own public space free of males of any kind - no male homos, no male hamsters. This girls were very serious about their separatism and didn't obstain from evicting lesbian mothers with male babies from their congregations - with a result that some women were disguising their sons in girl's clothes. The result was that those female separatists began to control private parts of 3-month aged babies to guarantee that sacred female ground isn't desecrated by stinky males in developement... The result was, of course, that many of those lesbians with children were treated as "enemies of the people" and were doubly stigmatized.
Why am I telling you this? I want that you understand that too strict criterions may lead the entire idea ad absurdum: a place designed to offer refuge for oppressed LGBT folks would itselfe become overly selective and oppressive to an extent which exceeds many "hethro empires". It is beyound my understanding why you think that lesbians are potential traitors - because they might become pregnant and later would express a wish to naturalize their heterosexual children? While the gay state should preserve its citizenship to LGBT folks only, I see no reason why gays and lesbians with children should be excluded. With bisexuals, it is a more difficult issue - I know to little about them. Most probably, bisexuals would anyway not strive to join out enterprise. If there is a need to introduce a quote for bisexuals (which I doubt) the state could do this, but to say that bisexuals are generally unwelcomed is certainly wrong.
-
There is indeed a majority of gay men in this forum - but this does not necessarily mean that lesbians are a priori less interested in separatism. It might simply mean that they prefer to spend time off-line with some other usefull things - reading books, painting or whatever. There was a kind of lesbian separatist movement in the seventies when the "wimin" wanted to create their own public space free of males of any kind - no male homos, no male hamsters. This girls were very serious about their separatism and didn't obstain from evicting lesbian mothers with male babies from their congregations - with a result that some women were disguising their sons in girl's clothes. The result was that those female separatists began to control private parts of 3-month aged babies to guarantee that sacred female ground isn't desecrated by stinky males in developement... The result was, of course, that many of those lesbians with children were treated as "enemies of the people" and were doubly stigmatized.
To the best of my knowledge,gay separatism as a political idea originated among lesbians,not among gay males.It existed in the form you are describing here.It was a very good idea.But unfortunately and in the case of women,it had a very weak material and economic basis,and thus almost no root in realpolitiks.Such a form of independence would have entailed for women to loss of the husband provider and more generally of male support.It would have chased away the very constituency it sought to attract.Wether we may like it or not,there will always be some measure of material and economic figuring in the options and choices of women,which will prevent most lesbians from emigrating to an eventual gay country.We will have at best a female minority,composed of economically independent individuals.These independent women should I think
have some autonomous area,out of bounds even to us gay males,in the framework of an independent gay Republic.Or at least cultural and social activities excluding males.They should also have separate units,entirely female and commanded by female officers and generals in the context of our national armed forces.We gay males have to face various consequences arising from our sexual orientation and options.But at least,we are completely independent from women in the material and economic sphere.
K6
-
It is beyound my understanding why you think that lesbians are potential traitors - because they might become pregnant and later would express a wish to naturalize their heterosexual children?
I do not regard lesbians as traitors.I am simply not certain of their adhesion to homosexuality to the extent required to maintain in existence a gay independent State.Adhesion in an exclusive and uncompromising manner to homosexuality is something I have observed,in 53 years of existence,only among males.A gay State will have to keep out heterosexuals as permanent residents.If it is to survive in an hostile world,it won`t be in a position to afford any private initiative in matters of reproduction leading to the reconstitution of an eventual hethro majority.The salvation of the State,our gay State,will entail the sacrifice of a certain number of individuals.In that respect,I entirely agree with lesbian separatists who exclude so-called lesbian mothers.
K6
-
If there is a need to introduce a quote for bisexuals (which I doubt) the state could do this, but to say that bisexuals are generally unwelcomed is certainly wrong.
If this State of ours is composed only of individuals of one sex,of males for instance,then there is no reason to exclude males of the so-called bisexual orientation.The guarantee as to the future of our country will then be entirely in our hands,not in theirs.If this State of ours is mixed sex,so-called bisexuals are to be issued only tourist visas of,say,thirty days per year.Our country would then profit economically from their presence,
without being saddled with the representation and burden of their heterosexual interests.
K6
-
I hardly believe that the young and handsome would enjoy the prospective of passing their sourly earned money to the government.
Gays would pay taxes in a country of theirs,just like they used to do under foreign hethro rule.Only that it is their State and society which would
profit from the operation.Having no kids,no wives and no family obligations,and having thus more available income,the citizens of a gay country
would in all likelyhood pay higher taxes,again just like they did as bachelors under the former hethro regime.With this higher contribution,coupled with the fact that they would be more available for public service,they could offer themselves the best of what is available in terms of, precisely,public services,such as for example free health care,pensions for the old and state of the art education system and autonomous colonies for those gay teenagers who would succeed to emigrate to that gay country.
K6
-
If this State of ours is composed only of individuals of one sex,of males for instance,then there is no reason to exclude males of the so-called bisexual orientation.The guarantee as to the future of our country will then be entirely in our hands,not in theirs.If this State of ours is mixed sex,so-called bisexuals are to be issued only tourist visas of,say,thirty days per year.Our country would then profit economically from their presence, without being saddled with the representation and burden of their heterosexual interests.
Certainly, excluding females from the "Gay Republic" would eliminate the worries about their heterosexual children, but it also would deprive us of a large part of our target citizens, who would be left on their own by the Gay Government. Certainly, we could here and now decide that lesbians do not belong to our people and that we have no reason to worry about them and do not carry any responsibility for them. Alone, such a position contradicts my personal sense of justice and does not reflect my views on gay identity. If 95% of gays, 95% of lesbians do not regard themselve as one people on their own, it is deplorable, but we hardly can force them into changing their views. From those remaining 5% of gays and 5% of lesbians who identify themeselves as one people, how shall we come to the idea to refuse those lesbians? It would be a "nice" Gay State sending lesbians back to Nigeria and Zimbabwe, whereas UK and Canada accept them, if reluctantly, as asyl seekers.
I have little doubts that in a Gay State there will be not few gays and lesbians who would prefer to separate from the opposite sex spacially and organizatory - there is nothing to object in such behavior, as long as such groups do not regard their interests as superior to the entire community. To keep political ballance, it might be necessary to introduce additional chambers for the parliament: "house of boys" and "house of girls", if you want, both with veto right on legislative proposals.
-
Certainly, excluding females from the "Gay Republic" would eliminate the worries about their heterosexual children, but it also would deprive us of a large part of our target citizens, who would be left on their own by the Gay Government. Certainly, we could here and now decide that lesbians do not belong to our people and that we have no reason to worry about them and do not carry any responsibility for them.
I wouldn`t go as far as excluding women.I would however go as far either integrating them under a definition of who is gay at the exact same conditions as men,or excluding them.One single definition of who is gay for both sexes.No preferential treatment for women on account that they are women,and no integration of women to the gay people under conditions different from those of men.Anyway,any group advertising itself as gay,even if it is neither a State nor even a political organisation,including this forum,will attract less women.It is a matter of economics and material condition.Huge economic transfers,of a rather unilateral and unidirectional variety and which occur under hethro rule,will not happen under a gay administration.Men there will be beyond the control and sometimes even of the reach of the opposite sex.It will not be possible to set up males has happen in a heterosexual culture,where sexual pleasure combines all too easily with certain accomplished facts of a reproductive nature.The gay male world shall remain an untamed one.
K6
-
I have little doubts that in a Gay State there will be not few gays and lesbians who would prefer to separate from the opposite sex spacially and organizatory - there is nothing to object in such behavior, as long as such groups do not regard their interests as superior to the entire community.
I do not mind as a male the hatred of males I have once observed among radical separatist lesbians.The later think that they serve some female mystique.Whereas the real beneficiary of their posturing and attitude is actually the gay interest.I do not ask how the gay interest is served,but wether or not it is served.Radical separatist lesbians exclude so-called lesbian mothers.They would haul them before some court if they could.And in a gay State,I wouldn`t mind at all their having a judicial competence over certain matters which would lead to just that.The general charge could be "usurpation of the reproductive function,which in a gay culture and under a gay administration is of the exclusive competence of the State".The radical lesbians could add to that whatever pretext of their own invention,again I wouldn`t mind.They may hate males if it can sooth them.They have at present no independence from males when it comes to the erection or maintenance of the dwelling or transit infrastructure of a modern society.
K6
-
To keep political ballance, it might be necessary to introduce additional chambers for the parliament: "house of boys" and "house of girls", if you want, both with veto right on legislative proposals.
The political importance of the various sub-groups constituting a gay democratic State will entirely depend from whom immigration will bring to its shores.Those who won`t come won`t have any power or influence.Those who will be underepresented,because they prefer to remain abroad and under foreign hethro rule,will have to seek compromises with whatever gay sub-group forming the majority in numbers.
K6
-
Thus,part of the campaining of the various political parties and factions of a gay democratic State based on immigration will be aimed at those gays living abroad.They will try to convince those gays to emigrate to that gay State in the hope of increasing their own importance and influence there.And naturally some of those parties or factions will encounter objections,pilling up under the expression of "yes,but",and uttered by people having closer ties either economic or cultural with hethro societies than with a gay independent State.
K6
-
Certainly, "democracy" means the rule of the people. This implies that the opinion of the majority determines the general politics, and that minorities (the riches, or the poors, or the young, or the old etc) often have to surrender much of their interests at the will of the majority.
However, the state's basic legal framework (the constitution) must determine the borders of such a dictate of the majority over the minorities - the well-found ballance is distinctive for any good state. A well-fixed ballance between individual rights and the rights and competencies of the state will be decisive for the success or misfortune of the Gay State.
At the moment it can not be stated with certainty whether lesbians really have different interests than gays, and how the society would be composed. As imaginable possibilities, I would say that there might a controversy arise about artificial insemination and getting children, and the distribution of spendings for education etc.. Another controversal question might be the health care system - the lesbian women might differently perceive the issue of HIV/AIDS and the necessety to spend money for its treatment.
All in one, there must be regulations on what issues minorities can claim to be settled, and regulations on issues requiring wide consensus.
-
Certainly, "democracy" means the rule of the people. This implies that the opinion of the majority determines the general politics, and that minorities (the riches, or the poors, or the young, or the old etc) often have to surrender much of their interests at the will of the majority.
However, the state's basic legal framework (the constitution) must determine the borders of such a dictate of the majority over the minorities - the well-found ballance is distinctive for any good state. A well-fixed ballance between individual rights and the rights and competencies of the state will be decisive for the success or misfortune of the Gay State.
After some gay State is established and secure against a foreign hethro international environment,yes,definitely.But in an intermediary stage,and if hypothetically one is to choose between the establishment and salvation of the State - of our State,mind you - and the foreign hethro interest,the individual interest will have to be discarded wether it is the one of heterosexuals or of gays.We are involved here in a discussion about collective bliss,which may differ from the egoistical and petty satisfaction of the individual.Provided that the gay people is saved and living in self-determination and in a State of his own,I do not care what happens to gay individuals.
K6
-
All in one, there must be regulations on what issues minorities can claim to be settled, and regulations on issues requiring wide consensus.
My only concern as a gay separatist is the interest of the gay people.
K6
-
At the moment it can not be stated with certainty whether lesbians really have different interests than gays, and how the society would be composed. As imaginable possibilities, I would say that there might a controversy arise about artificial insemination and getting children, and the distribution of spendings for education etc..
The above issue,the one of motherhood,will remain hypothetical and academic in the absence of a female population.Likewise if the sample of
female participants in a project of gay independence do not raise the said issue in the course of its political talks with us.Such women could be
interested more in furthering their own professionnal carreers and status as modern role models for women and pionneers of a new way of life for women than in motherhood.Should however such women would want a gay organized society and Republic of ours to be the mere continuation of the type of relations between men and women which existed heretofore under foreign hethro rule,then the time will have come for us gay males to contemplate and elaborate a scenario of secession from the hethro geopolitical body which will leave all members of the opposite sex on the hethro side of the political frontier to be established.The mere mention that we could do it could have a moderative
effect upon the egoistical desires for motherhood,which are essentially inspired by the culture of the hethro regime and foreign to our way of
life which entails renunciation to any private reproductive undertaking.Upon becoming geopolitically independent,we gays shall transfer to society and to the State the competence over reproduction.That will be a mere formality,corresponding to that way of life of ours which we have upheld against incredible odds since the origins of mankind.
K6