Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yep, the "People's Temple" succeeded in securing an area of 15 km², not that bad. Though they technically didn't found a State, they negotiated favourable conditions with the government with regard to customs and emigration. Unfortunately, a "communist prison camp" usually doesn't work out very well.

As for the legal / illegal foundation of a State - the scholars of the International Law apparently agree that in most cases, any illegalities involved in the emergence of a new State are healed by the mere fact of its existence.

In Oppenheim-Lauterpacht: International Law, vol. 1 , 8th ed. (1955), p. 544, we read:

„The acquisition of territory by an existing State and member of the international community must not be confused, first, with the foundation of a new State [...]. The formation of a new State is [...] a matter of fact and not of law. It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that such new State becomes a subject of International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State’s territory is recognized as the territory of a subject of international law, and it matters not how this territory was acquired before recognition.“

Alike, R. Y. Jennings: The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (Manchester University Press, 1963), p. 8 :

„For transfers of territory between existing States the law lays down a series of modes through which alone a valid title to the sovereignty may be passed from one to another; but for a territorial change coincident with the birth of a new State the law apparently not only fails to provide any modes of transfer but appears to be actually indifferent as to how the acquisition is accomplished.“

This sounds encouraging to me...

For the last few years I've been lurking here and all has been quiet. I know there are still a few dedicated members though who watch and are willing and ready to work, but guidance is needed.

I am putting forward a plan of action to actually get something done.

The plan is simple, and is one that has worked in the past (in the colonization of the Americas). Business drives the formation of new nations more than anything else and this plan will allow us to attract investors inside and outside the community and also fund each further step in the process of attaining recognition.

The key is in building a resort, one geared towards the LGBT community. Owned by, staffed by and catering to LGBT clientele, this resort would be built somewhere attractive but secluded. Possible locations include Madagascar, Guyana, or other nation with a low population density. The resort starts primarily as a hotel, but with lots of land around it. This land will be sold at cheap rates and then developed into summer/vacation homes for our community. Summer homes become retirement homes, and as more and more people go to visit, more and more people will be required to be permanent residents to maintain the property and other services. In short time it will become a full town, then city, until finally (within 50 years) a nation.

It will not be as simple as buying an island and planting the rainbow flag on it.

There are several key steps that everyone will need to be involved in.

1 - The formation of an executive committee to oversee the project
2 - Those working on the project should be made to be official representatives of the GHF, setup profiles on LinkedIn and use these positions to work on getting investors.
3 - An in depth business plan with costs laid out will need to be prepared for representatives to use to raise money
4 - Approximately $20 million US will need to be raised for the construction
5 - Land would need to be purchased and construction begun
6 - Staffing for the hotel would commence, recruiting strictly through LGBT channels worldwide
7 - At this point it would simply be a matter of attracting more and more people to visit and purchase seasonal homes from our community. It won't be a fast path to nationhood, but it stands the best chance of succeeding and lasting. Eventually the population center will be strong enough to out-populate the locals (easy in Guyana) or at least get them to secede a section of territory to us (in Madagascar perhaps).

Please respond to this if you are active and ready to start doing something.

-Kendrick Miller

It is possible to enter into an arrangement with an existing nation. It was done as recently as the 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

Didn't work out too well for them but we aren't a cult.

Ive also read ur concerns about demographics, some of the most recent and conservative estimates place homosexuality being prevalent in about 1 ind every 10 persons, some others as high as 1/4. imho such as suggested here would have a way higher natural ration since the "nurture" component would pro gay and who know the natural ration in a pro-gay environment may even be 1/4. and with a steady migration rate of gays from other nations might push up the equilibrium over the 50% mark through out future generations.
And the overall equilibrium could be shifted even higher if reproduction (homosexual) through ivf is regulated in order to select towards homosexuality, to date no gay gene has been established but there is already hints at how it might be selected for:
http://ejscontent.ebsco.com/ContentServer.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Espringerlink%2Ecom%2Findex%2FP2365262023TKN31%2Epdf
http://tigger.uic.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf
sSo it might be quite possible and likely to take some voluntary regulation of IVF to improve the chance that the nations offspring will be homosexual, which combined with the influx of immigrants the overall effect may well push the demographics towards a high homosexual majority.
some may say that its unethical, but then again similar data may well be used other societies to select for lower incidence of homosexuality which most likely wont be seen as an ethical issue in their case, so why cant we do it for our own mean too.

Well from what ive read here most suggestions seem t be focused on tiny islands and barren expanses of land, but ofcourse they all are claimed by one nation or another and the likely hood of anexing any is rather low.

my suggestion would be to forget about trying to adquire any of those islands and to instead focus on unclaimed region. it may sound unfesible but im my opinion the best option would be to claim a table mount, bank or guyot, there are quite a few that are located within 0 tp - 20m (with expanses often 10+ km wide at such depths) in depth in international waters. and i suppose that the investment of placing stilts or a floating structure would be way less than trying to buy a strip of land from an existing nation, plus such settlement would be open to economic development based in sea industry.

another less desirable prospect would be to claim part of Marie Byrd Land, and settle near exposed ground, the sea can be harvested for food, energy and construction materials.

i know none of my ideas are the idylic white sand beaches most would like to settle a hedonistic nation (well maybe an equatorial sea mount might do) but imho they are the most realistic areas to place a settlement without legal hassle.

Feel free to speak your mind. I love contributions.

Well let me introduce myself, im phil a biotech scientist in training and gay ofcourse, i came across this site a few years back but didn't join back then. to start with im a supporter of a gay state.

ive read alot of ur discussions, they seem quite interesting and i hope id be able to contribute. i myself have some ideas in respect to the "territory" issue.

So I came across this group a while back after a friend pointed me towards it.  I have to ask, why do you folks think a gay "homeland" is the way to go?  Why would I (or anybody else) want to live in a nation entirely made up of gay people?  What (beside who and how I fuck) do I really have in common with other gay people that I don't also have in common with straight people?

This is a casually interesting batch of questions. With regret, I cannot properly answer them. I could not possibly begin to speculate on what you might or might not have in common with other people on the basis of ninety-four words of text. I mean... seriously, Boopsie... are you high? You want me to sum up your existence on the basis of ninety-four words? I won’t do it.

One thing I suspect you do have in common with other Gay people is this cute (and really... it’s charming as can be) “drive-by” post. We have yet to be the beneficiary of one from a self-professed heterosexual. Strange, I know... but completely true. They just never, ever have. I could speculate on why that is. I even have done so from time to time but it got me nowhere.

There are a number of neurological and endrocrinological factors that you almost certainly do not share with other straight people. After all, if you did have those factors in common with straight people you would be straight. Who knows? You might be straight. It would be imprudent of me to presume that you were not based on nothing more than your use of the word “other.” Some of these factors you (might) share with Gay people have public policy implications but most don’t. While I find them quite interesting as a topic of conversation, I just don’t find they have much to do with politics. Something else you share is a history of really quite remarkable oppression. Indeed, many of the statistics I’ve seen out of Great Britain suggest that you’re quite lucky to be alive... luckier than I am. That may, after all, be something that you and I do not have in common, though you do share it with Gays residing in Jamaica. While me and mine really do make quite the habit of complaining about our own species of oppression, I must confess that it just does not compare to that which pertains in places like the United Kingdom.

Now... this “anybody else” wanting to live in a nation entirely made up of Gay people... I presume that this hypothetical Anybody might wish to do so because of a misguided dissatisfaction with the company of straight people. This hypothetical Anybody would be, I think, doomed to disappointment since I know of no Gay Nationalist organizations anywhere that even support such a notion, let alone plan on implementing such a state. Gay Nationalists come in many conflicting flavors... you could call them political parties if you wanted to. They vary considerably in what they hope to accomplish but I think it safe to say that all of them have an interest in Gay sovereignty. While it is certainly true that an absolute exclusion of straight people would produce that end result, I know of not one person who espouses this belief. For myself, I find such ideas irredeemably evil. I would never wish to live in such a nation. I wouldn’t even care to share tea with someone who would. A Gay state may be viewed as a movement away from straight people or as a movement toward Gay people. I very sincerely believe that the former is doomed to failure (and ought to be) while the latter is not.

It appears to me (on the flimsy foundation of but ninety-four words) that you are fundamentally in error about nationality, especially chosen nationality.

A friend of mine, one that I had not seen for many years, suddenly appeared at my workplace.

“Guess where I’ve been?” he demanded with a most charming and mischievous grin.

“I couldn’t possibly,” said I (because I’m totally like that).

“Berlin,” says he.

“Berlin? Goodness gracious, Sweetie. I know perfectly well I’ve instructed you to avoid Texas at all costs. Please don’t tell me you’ve been in Texas just to be willful.”

“No, Silly. Not Berlin, Texas... Berlin, Germany,” he says. “I quite like it there.”

“Well... many people certainly are fond of the place,” says I.

Then this friend of mine gets that serious look... the one you know nothing about because you’ve not met him... the one that means he’s about to stop being silly and start being serious. “I’m thinking of moving there... becoming a German, I mean.”

The conversation proceeds from there in a direction that serves this particular diatribe not one bit. The point of the anecdote is this: My friend has nothing whatsoever in common with Germans... nothing that I could state. He was quite serious about this “becoming a German” stuff and he made his decision (so far as I could tell) based on the differentness of both the place and the people living there.

Similarly, I could relate a nifty pair of anecdotes about separate people, one of whom emigrated from the US to Canada and another who emigrated from Canada to the US. They aren’t at all interesting but... again... this notion of having anything in common with the people of their respective destinations was conspicuously absent.

I’ve never heard of someone leaving one nation for another on the basis of a perceived commonality. That would, I think, be shockingly weird and I find the imputation that such a thing would be required in order for you to even casually approve of the foundation of a Gay state to be somewhat disturbing. Of course, I really ought to be permitted to be disturbed by whatever disturbs me and you should not, in any way, take offense at my disturbance. I mean nothing by it at all... especially since it would be silly of me to form a firm opinion on anything based on ninety-four words. Many people do find me to be quite silly (and I am), but no one accuses me of being quite that silly.

If you are content with the manner in which you are governed, then by all means lie back and enjoy yourself. Be happy. I don’t mind one bit. I am convinced that you would be better governed by Gays. I am convinced that all people would be better governed by what might be termed “homo-centric” rather than “hetero-centric” principles. I think Gay people should govern their own affairs to their own satisfaction and, far from imagining some heterosexual-free environment, I am convinced that heterosexuals would also be very nicely served by such a regime; they just wouldn’t be entirely in charge. I can see how that might be an unpleasant state of affairs for some straight people. I can see how it might be an unpleasant state of affairs for some Gay people. Since there are all those other straight-run states to choose from, the only real discontent that would result from a Gay state would be that which arises from not ruling the entire world. I have no sympathy on that score: you just don’t get to complain to me about how you don’t have dominion over the entire world. After all, while I am convinced that what is good for the Gay people would be good for all people, I have no designs on "all people." I don't even have designs on all Gay people; the majority of Gays wishing to live in a sovereign Gay state would have to emigrate there. I can't imagine how one would even begin to try to compel them to do so.

Nope... if you don't want to live in a Gay state, don't move there.

I have to ask, why do you folks think a gay "homeland" is the way to go?  Why would I (or anybody else) want to live in a nation entirely made up of gay people?

The basic idea is that Gays constitute a separate people - a "particular social group", a "cultural minority", and that Gay people would be significantly better off when they were taking their issues into their own hands. This idea we call "Gay nationalism". This includes Gay culture, Gay self-government, and spacial congregation of the Gay people.

We think that Gay people are governed rather poorly by straight people, and that we could govern ourselves much better. Straight people outnumber Gay people in a relation of 16:1, and therefore are always in the posession of political power. Accordingly, the entire legal system usually is taylored to suit the needs of straight people - often on costs of Gay people. Even in a "perfect" society where Gays are not actively persecuted and do enjoy the same legal rights as straights, the cultural live, education etc is entirely straight-centered. This can be only changed by creation of the Gay public space - by the means of Gay publications and by spacial congregation.

Speaking of the "non-perfect" societies, which harbour the overwhelming majourity of human population, Gay people are subject of social and religious hatred, professional bans, denial of medication, censoreship, imprisonment, beatings, torture, murder - for no different reason than being Gay.

It has been my experience that boys and girls from oppressive countries need no further explanation of advantages the Gay state would offer them. A productive life in safety and freedom is a sufficient reason for them to move. Most Gay people highly value the chance to freely associate with other Gays - a chance most of our people do not have either due to persecution and/or due to the spacial dispersion. The Gay city will offer Gays the chance to enjoy the culture and live among people who really understand and embrace eachother - not the condescending kind of "inclusion" the straight people can offer to us.

To turn the question the other way around, why would you (or anybody else) want to live in a nation entirely made up of straight people?*

What (beside who and how I fuck) do I really have in common with other gay people that I don't also have in common with straight people?

This question can be answered only by the individual himself or herself. One either feels a kind of special bond to "his people", or doesn't. One can even wilfully choose to participate or not to participate in any particular culture. The question is, of course, whether the other members of that one culture of your choice do share your feelings (that you belong with them). For illustration: the situation of a Gay person feeling belonging to the straight society is comparable with a person of African origin who grew up in China and considers himself a Chinese. The sense of "belonging together" is rarely reciprocal, in both cases. 

In general terms, just like in any people / any nation, there is much diversity of opinions / intelligence / tempers among the Gay people. What keeps us together, is the sense of "brotherly love" which is definitely not there in relation to the straight people (male or female). The shared experience of being different, the experiences of exclusion and oppression, do contribute their share to the shaping of our common identity. Additionally, our cultural interests naturally differ from those of straights: straights usually do not read Gay literature and do not watch Gay movies. 

The issues of identity have been discussed on this forum and elsewhere, and if you have an interest, you can go through these discussions:

http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=394.0
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=188.0
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=148.0

„Sixteen Propositions“ by Michael Denneny: http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2006/09/gay-essence_24.html

----------------------
* You must grant me the assumption tha a nation made up of 94% of straight people comes quite close to the definition of "entirely made of straight people".

Liberia?  Really?  Is that really a country some of you think you should model yourselves on?

In terms of acquiring a souvereign territory - yes. In terms of shaping a society - no.