Print

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

[K6]

Can you give some information on the amount of people who participated in the project over the years? It would be also very interesting to know how you spread the idea to others in the pre-internet time.  To make it short, a detailed report would be very interesting not only to the few individuals in this forum. We intend to gather more material about other similar efforts and make it available to the community in large. Hopefully more people will get involved and the idea will be developed further to a stage of realization.

Here,I represent only myself,and not the GPR officially.The official representation of the GPR takes place in alt.politics.micronations.80% of the
GPR`s activity there is to be in languages other than English according to a plan adopted last january.Regular exchanges with the External
Affairs of the GPR are possible in alt.politics.micronations if one is capable of communicating in some language other than English which is also spoken
at the seat of the GPR.At present,the GPR`s External Affairs can conduct elaborate political exchanges in French,Spanish and Polish.

K6

[K6]

But don't you see that there is a logical breach at this point then in your argumentation? When you have men and women in the country, there will be enevitably some of them who would like to get children, no matter what the government and the high priests will preach? They will be probably few, but they will be - therefore your previous statement that

"In a gay state having its demographic basis exclusively in immigration,we would have no kids and thus no kindergarten or primary school level"

cannot be upheld without sterilization of women or expulsion of pregnant ones? You must know, it is pretty easy to make a baby without sexual contact by simple technical means (a syringe without cannula suffice fully), so if they one day want to have a baby they will get it. And from 10 of those babies 9 will be heterosexual, so the problem still remains: what to do with them when they grow up and start reproduce on their own?

As I said,in micropolical simulation,no woman seem to qualify as gay so far.The definition of who is gay is general,doesn`t exclude women,and contents no hint of male (or female) separatism.Rather,it`s women themselves who seem to remain out of the definition.They do not adhere homosexuality the same way men do.I think it has to do with economics.Too much material and financial support is at stake,which would be lost to women if they adhered homosexuality in the same exclusive and uncompromising way many men do.Men do not need women for their immediate survival.But women are immediately dependent upon males in connection with the performance of a certain number of everyday
and ordinary tasks,some backbreaking other dangerous which they do not generally perform.The same with the current gay immigration trends from less tolerant countries to more liberal ones: these involve almost no women.A gay independent state established in the present conditions would be either exclusively or overwhelmingly male.Males of a such type that the sort of relation or negociation which exists in an heterosexual society between the sexes could not possibly continue in such an exclusively homosexual and fiercely independent male environment.A solution would consist in establishing distinct and separate conditions of acquisition of the status of gay for women.This would amount to unequality.If we cannot have equality between the sexes because one seeks to live off the other or put society in the presence of such accomplished facts like pregnancies,we would be better off seceding from the opposite sex as well.A gay state composed of members of only one sex would of course have no problem or issue with reproduction.But for the time being and in principle,the opposite sex is not excluded from participation in gay statehood under conditions of equal rights,duties and definition of who is gay.

K6

[Mogul]

[..] I have no documents available for dissemination at the moment.The material I wrote over the 28 past years would have first to be translated as it was written in French,my mother tongue. (*) The main document would be the "Code de la République Gaie Parallèle" (Code of the Gay Parallel Republic or GPR),on which I have been working since august 15,1977.It purports to a parallel geopolitical and non-state gay organization,and focusses on the aspects of sovereignthy which can be immediately implemented in real life.The GPR is located in the middle St.François river valley in Quebec,and centered on the city of Sherbrooke.It makes 799 square kilometers in size,about the size of the city state of Siingapore.It has a small enclave of 2.5 square kilometers near Montreal (Oka beach,nicknamed "Okapulco).

French would surelly also be OK, at least for those who can speak this language. Can you give some information on the amount of people who participated in the project over the years? It would be also very interesting to know how you spread the idea to others in the pre-internet time.  To make it short, a detailed report would be very interesting not only to the few individuals in this forum. We intend to gather more material about other similar efforts and make it available to the community in large. Hopefully more people will get involved and the idea will be developed further to a stage of realization.

As per 1),any homosexual individual without descendants,regardless of sex.Or with documentary proof of acquisition of descendance outside the practice of heterosexuality (adoption papers,medical record of assisted reproduction).In principle,definition of who is gay openned to both sexes.In micropolitical simulation and practical implementation,no woman has so far qualified as gay,see below (*) [..]

But don't you see that there is a logical breach at this point then in your argumentation? When you have men and women in the country, there will be enevitably some of them who would like to get children, no matter what the government and the high priests will preach? They will be probably few, but they will be - therefore your previous statement that

"In a gay state having its demographic basis exclusively in immigration,we would have no kids and thus no kindergarten or primary school level"

cannot be upheld without sterilization of women or expulsion of pregnant ones? You must know, it is pretty easy to make a baby without sexual contact by simple technical means (a syringe without cannula suffice fully), so if they one day want to have a baby they will get it. And from 10 of those babies 9 will be heterosexual, so the problem still remains: what to do with them when they grow up and start reproduce on their own? We would have anyway either to deal with citizens with a child wishes (initiate abortions or send them into exile,  ) or with straight kids - so why not allow those with kids immigrate / join us right from beginning? It wan't make really a difference for the state, but much difference for any particular individual.

I mean, simply because you would declare any child birth undesired, it doesn't mean people would abide by this! To achieve a zero-birthrate than the restrictive legislation and cruel enforcement will be required. The prize question is then: do we want to live in such a country?

[K6]

As per 1),any homosexual individual without descendants,regardless of sex.Or with documentary proof of acquisition of descendance outside
the practice of heterosexuality (adoption papers,medical record of assisted reproduction).In principle,definition of who is gay openned to both
sexes.In micropolitical simulation and practical implementation,no woman has so far qualified as gay,see below (*)

As per 2),gay citizenship openned only to the above homosexual individuals.Generally,but not always,members of other sexual minorities (bisexuals,tv/ts) regarded as heterosexuals.Minors defined formally,and as without any sexual orientation at birth.

I have no documents available for dissemination at the moment.The material I wrote over the 28 past years would have first to be translated as it was written in French,my mother tongue.

(*) The main document would be the "Code de la République Gaie Parallèle" (Code of the Gay Parallel Republic or GPR),on which I have been working since august 15,1977.It purports to a parallel geopolitical and non-state gay organization,and focusses on the aspects of sovereignthy which can be immediately implemented in real life.The GPR is located in the middle St.François river valley in Quebec,and centered on the city of Sherbrooke.It makes 799 square kilometers in size,about the size of the city state of Siingapore.It has a small enclave of 2.5 square kilometers
near Montreal (Oka beach,nicknamed "Okapulco).

For the rest,see in alt.politics.micronations for the current external affairs of the GPR.

[Mogul]

In a gay state having its demographic basis exclusively in immigration,we would have no kids and thus no kindergarten or primary school level.[..]

Just to eliminate last doubts about your initial assumptions:

1) gay = homosexual male without descendants?
2) gay state = a territorial entity which citizens are exclusively gays as defined in "1)"?

If so, your previous contributions appear more logical and understandable and there is no "straight child problem" a priory. An elegant solution on its own, which has all chances to succeed and serve well those who will be lucky enough to be accepted.

However, we are looking for a broader solution which would include homosexual individuals of both genders - "gay homeland" being a state open to lesbians as well as for transgenders. One of the primary state goals should be then "offering a refuge to the prosecuted homosexuals of both genders regardless of race, wealth, social or health status". Therefore the difficult cases will be also welcome, and not only male, young, healthy and childless. Sure, the average material wealth would be diminished and social problems would be greater than in your solution, but it is worth it for us.

Nonwithstanding these differences, I would like to read more of your detailed views on the construction of a gay sovereignty. Do you have some ready documents which you could submitt to us for evaluation? If you wish, we could add your compiled paperwork to our library (the novella too  ).

[K6]

Probably it would be worth of a more detailed discussion what kind of governmental control about the children do you suggest? E.g. where the kids should be accomodated (with parents or in a nursery/internate), about what age they should be separated from the parents and who determines about them in case the parents decide to leave the state and the like.

In a gay state having its demographic basis exclusively in immigration,we would have no kids and thus no kindergarten or primary school level.
We could have a certain number of teenagers,who like adults would have simply fled to our side.Apart from the international difficulties this could cause us,I am asking myself wether these should be made available for adoption by gay resident adults,or raised more or less the same way they raise youngsters in the Israeli kibbutzim system.In freedom,both personal and political,gays would perhaps congregate in ways different and still unknown to us,we really don`t know.I would frankly prefer young gays to grow up in communities or clans of their own age group similar to the kibbutzim,which would replace family bonds and establish solidarities for the remainder of their lives in our country.In an unpublished novel on which I worked from 1986 to1990,and about a scenario of gay independence,conflicts erupted between such youngsters over the possession of newcomers (immigrants) to their groups.The state had,for purposes of public order,to establish something similar to the institution of marriage in polygamic form,so that youngsters would cease to quarrel and intrigue between themselves over who belongs to which group or clan.I`d deem young gays as too independent to have two parents like in an heterosexual society.They should have instead several adult role models as in the kibbutzim,among whom they would choose themselves specific examples to follow and emulate.

K6

[Mogul]

[..] The ideas you set forth ressemble somewhat the ones of the stateless neo-liberal and private enterprise system in the sphere of economics: whatever the private enterprise system does,even if it causes harm to society,society must not intervene.In a gay culture,and even before it has crystalyzed into a state organization,individuals have renounced on their own any private competence over the reproductive function.A renunciation infered and embodied in their homosexual behavior.Producing future humans now requires the equivalent of a village,and is the result of a consensus between several parties finaly involving society and public services (immigration or new reproductive technology),for the well being of all. [..]

Of course, every society can create its own definition of what issues belong into the public sphere and which belong into the private sphere. Maybe I have fallen prey to my own cultural predjudices, but I am somewhat reluctant to the idea that people would lose their right for reproduction and surrender it to the governmental control. I am open-minded to the idea of raising children in a "village", which is anyway the case in any society to a certain degree. At any case we should define more precisely about what we are talking, in order to make visible to what degree you suggest to put the children under governmental control. Probably it would be worth of a more detailed discussion what kind of governmental control about the children do you suggest? E.g. where the kids should be accomodated (with parents or in a nursery/internate), about what age they should be separated from the parents and who determines about them in case the parents decide to leave the state and the like.

Please also keep in mind, that the most effective argumentation against equal treatment of same-sex relationships is the assumed "needs of society" which is claimed to be of a superior value to individual rights to happy and fulfilled life. If we would claim the same for us, namely that individual rights are inferior to the assumed "state reason", we extinguish any legitimacy of our cause outside our own borders. We would empower our enemies to do whatever they want with any of our people who they can catch.

The said states,especially the anti-gay ones,could be more interested in creating difficulties on an international level to a gay independent state.Thus to use the above mentionned parents and their kids as pawns,rather than to represent their genuine interests.The kids would grow up into adults,eventually filling complaints before the UN over the matter of their citizenship or of their own heterosexual reproductive privileges.And this could coincide with designs of foreign interference if not outright intervention at the expense of the gay state,under the common,abusive and frequently used pretext of human rights.There would be motives enough for foreign countries to meddle in the affairs of a country of ours without adding one more of our own.

Why, the international community never made anything to defend our rights, why should it care for the few straight kids suffering injustice in our country? If we will be lucky, the territory we can call to be ours, probably will have no oil and no other precious ressources, so the rest of the world wouldn't care a straw about us. We just should keep pace on the field of military and take a high blood toll fo any attempted hostile action against us. 

But from the point of justice, this is a very interesting point which you bring into discussion. In my simple world view I supposed we could set up certain criterions for our own citizens and disregard the question of where the other people belong to. Obviously, it was a bit short-sighted at least as far as children of citizens are concerned, who have no other citizenship, as our rules would make them stateless in 9 of 10 cases. It is the usual custom in the world that children either automatically get citizenship of their parents or of the country where they were born.

If children were born outside our country, we would be free of any responsibility. In other cases (they would be few) I suggest following solution: we make a bilateral agreement with one or more larger countries, that our children could choose their citizenship if they like, let's say at the age of 14 or 16.

Another solution, which is more pleasant from the point of individual rights, would be simply to grant them "gay citizenship" right from beginning and hope that they will not reproduce themselves as rabbits. In the modern world, educated people have a rather low reproduction rate and the rate of migration is sufficiently high to regulate this process without government interfering. We could use some decent instruments to encourage our straight (and gay) kids to go into the wide world with warm feelings: e.g. grant them stipendia for an abroad study and the like. Most probably they will find there a suitable partner and stay there. No need to harm someone's feelings or actual rights.

You see, my problem with your argumentation is mostly that you tend to suggest restrictive measures whereas some less-invasive, but smart legislation could achieve the same demographical effects without causing any hard feelings.

[K6]

If people desire to have children, there is nothing to say against this. They only should be aware that the kids will not automatically become citizens of the gay state, instead the parents could seek citizenship status for their kids in other countries. As actually the citizenship of the gay state would be build upon immigration from other countries, it's possible for the parents to acquire citizenship for their children from those states.

The said states,especially the anti-gay ones,could be more interested in creating difficulties on an international level to a gay independent
state.Thus to use the above mentionned parents and their kids as pawns,rather than to represent their genuine interests.The kids would
grow up into adults,eventually filling complaints before the UN over the matter of their citizenship or of their own heterosexual reproductive privileges.And this could coincide with designs of foreign interference if not outright intervention at the expense of the gay state,under the common,abusive and frequently used pretext of human rights.There would be motives enough for foreign countries to meddle in the affairs of a country of ours without adding one more of our own.

K6

[K6]

Jon, does this ball go to me? If so, I was referring to the policy of the former GLK/UGT offering citizenship to everybody regardles of sexual orientation/identity. If memory serves, clearly heterosexual friends, parents, grandparents and so on could buy the citizenship certificate/passport as well. This policy appears to me not very suitable for any actual gay state, because all these people, though friends, certainly are not "gay" or "queer" (= homosexual/bisexual/trans), no matter whatever certificate one sells to them. 

Under international custom,states grant their citizenship to whomever they want and are accountable to no one in that respect.But they are also
to be left to fend for themselves with the citizens and constituency they have themselves chosen,should their choice for that matter amount to a political mistake or lack of judgement.A gay state should normally protect gays from the presence in an organized political form of people with
heterosexual interests which are foreign to the gay culture and people.

K6

[K6]

I was mostly referring to your views on children and the role of the family in society as well as your definition of lacking gayness as far as gays with heterosexual experiences/kids are concerned. Also it appeared to me that you were advocating more governmental control in the sphere of reproduction and education. How would you treat people who would meet simple private arrangements to raise children on their own, without asking the state for permission to do so? For me being homosexual is a quiestion of feelings/identity and not that much dependent on what one person has done in his life before; that was the point I have critisized in your definition of gayness. OK? 

What individuals feel is and remains beyond the capacity of evaluation of a political agent and organization.A political agent or organization can only assess observable behaviors,certain of them with a basic demographic component and thus supremely political meaning.Reproduction has social consequences and is a political act.The ideas you set forth ressemble somewhat the ones of the stateless neo-liberal and private enterprise system in the sphere of economics: whatever the private enterprise system does,even if it causes harm to society,society must not intervene.In a gay culture,and even before it has crystalyzed into a state organization,individuals have renounced on their own any private competence over the reproductive function.A renunciation infered and embodied in their homosexual behavior.Producing future humans now requires the equivalent of a village,and is the result of a consensus between several parties finaly involving society and public services (immigration or new reproductive technology),for the well being of all.A well being which doesn`t appear to be of much of a concern in the context of private initiative in reproductive matters.

K6
technologies).

[Mogul]

So far,I have defined and sorted people only according to what they do in the sphere of sexual orientation,not on the basis of their political opinions or systems of beliefs.

I was mostly referring to your views on children and the role of the family in society as well as your definition of lacking gayness as far as gays with heterosexual experiences/kids are concerned. Also it appeared to me that you were advocating more governmental control in the sphere of reproduction and education. How would you treat people who would meet simple private arrangements to raise children on their own, without asking the state for permission to do so? For me being homosexual is a quiestion of feelings/identity and not that much dependent on what one person has done in his life before; that was the point I have critisized in your definition of gayness. OK? 

Is this person gay or that person not gay? Don't you think it is awfully conceited of anyone to attempt to make that determination of another person? If an individual considers him or herself to be gay, who are you to disagree with that simply because that person doesn't fit your "definition" of gay?

Jon, does this ball go to me? If so, I was referring to the policy of the former GLK/UGT offering citizenship to everybody regardles of sexual orientation/identity. If memory serves, clearly heterosexual friends, parents, grandparents and so on could buy the citizenship certificate/passport as well. This policy appears to me not very suitable for any actual gay state, because all these people, though friends, certainly are not "gay" or "queer" (= homosexual/bisexual/trans), no matter whatever certificate one sells to them. 

[K6]

Is this person gay or that person not gay? Don't you think it is awfully conceited of anyone to attempt to make that determination of another person? If an individual considers him or herself to be gay, who are you to disagree with that simply because that person doesn't fit your "definition" of gay?

Heterosexuals do so everyday,worldwide,and using far more derogative epithets.And they encounter no opposition.Why not play the same game for a change ? A separatist gay organisation operating more or less as a state would do has all the competence required to define who is gay
and who isn`t.

K6

[K6]

You see, "social engineering" is not at all at the agenda of the most gays and lesbians, neither on my personal.  Those who would emigrate to any future gay/lesbian state or affiliate to it in diaspora, would do this because they expect better lives for themselves and maybe their follow gays/lesbians. All these folks are as diverse as the rest of the human population is - there are communists and capitalists there, rich and poor, smart and stupid, family-oriented and promisque ones. While making drafts for a state, one can make certain frames for the co-existence of all these diverse people, but one can't expect them to fit exactly into a tight ideological concept.

So far,I have defined and sorted people only according to what they do in the sphere of sexual orientation,not on the basis of their political opinions or systems of beliefs.

K6

[Piper]

Is this person gay or that person not gay? Don't you think it is awfully conceited of anyone to attempt to make that determination of another person? If an individual considers him or herself to be gay, who are you to disagree with that simply because that person doesn't fit your "definition" of gay?

[Mogul]

You see, "social engineering" is not at all at the agenda of the most gays and lesbians, neither on my personal.  Those who would emigrate to any future gay/lesbian state or affiliate to it in diaspora, would do this because they expect better lives for themselves and maybe their follow gays/lesbians. All these folks are as diverse as the rest of the human population is - there are communists and capitalists there, rich and poor, smart and stupid, family-oriented and promisque ones. While making drafts for a state, one can make certain frames for the co-existence of all these diverse people, but one can't expect them to fit exactly into a tight ideological concept. Being homosexual/bisexual/hetero is not at all based on beliefs, it's our nature. Being an ethnos, one can't exclude large parts of one's own people because their beliefs do not fit into one's ideology (I know, though, that you are not entirely convinced of the "ethnic" concept of being gay). You simply can't re-define the common understanding of who is gay/queer just because those folks do not share your (somewhat extreme) ideals.

It is of course possible to form an entity based on a special ideology and dedicated to a social engineering of a kind you propose - but the suitable entity would rather be a Knight Order than a state, in any case an organization based on beliefs. It can find it's place within the gay state - but so will do many other organizations, based on different ideologies. For example, our Foundation has certain criteria for its members as well, but we are not intended to impose these criterion upon the entire society, as we are well aware that human nature isn't perfect.  But of course I agree to you that any community prosperes only if its members participate in the social live and contribute their share, therefore altruism is also a form of self-love in the broad sense. Also I can't refuse the argumentation of Fridet that gay community not always is that much helpful and solidary, as we often assume - but hey, it's up to us to improve this situation.

In my understanding, the most fundamental reason for establishing a gay/lesbian state is to offer physical protection to those who are persecuted, and to offer place for various concepts of homosexuals living in community. This would create also an additional cultural development - not based upon one ideology, but upon diversity. Any restrictions of personal liberties should only be imposed, if they are stringent necessary and only in the very limited degree which is sufficient to achieve the desireable effect. If it is stringent necessary to regularly restrict the whole citizenship only to gays and lesbians, so be it. But let the dependents or occasional bisexuals gain the right for permanent residency as well - it won't do the state any harm. The politics of appropriate measures I call this.

Therefore I think the best way is somewhere in the middle of the span between the all-inclusive concept of the "Unified Gay Tribe" and your very exclusive conception of the "true gayness". Your Order can make more severe rules, however.