Print

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

[K6]

Sure, certain criteria shall be established at beginning, but as you can see, the opinions about "who is gay" differ in a high degree.

Even before we start discussing about a secession,we must first have a clear idea of who is the people,of whom it is made of,and on that basis
wether or not it is capable of seceding and remaining politically independent.Second,our sexual orientation must be backed by some purpose,
preferably altruistic though an egoistic one will do as well,perhaps even better.By egoistic purpose for being gay,I mean for example being too
independent an individual to tolerate the limitations or differential aims of the opposite sex.An altruistic purpose for being gay would rather have
to do with social engeneering,that is renouncing family life in order to serve society only.Of which heterosexuals themselves have proven capable,
and of which we gays are also certainly capable.If we regard homosexuality solely as a private matter,without consideration for the possible good it could bring into the world,we deprive it of any reason for existing and being defended as a plausible and legitimate political interest.

K6

[K6]

P.S. Actually, what do you have against gays with children, or let's say more precesely: against gays who have had intercourse with females? Do you think they are "unclean" now for the remains of their lives?  You should know that many older gays had to take very hard struggles to acknowledge to themselves they are gay, and in between they found themselves with a wife and a bunch of kids. You shouldn't judge to severe upon them. Still, the question on bisexuals remains unanswered at all - at the beginning of the gay liberation they were regarded as true allies, so what now?

Individuals who have descendants or heterosexual interests aren`t gays as far as I am concerned.Or at the very least,their gayness is questionable.On such a precarious basis like such theoretical gays,no gay secession should be attempted for it has almost no chance of success.It is doomed from the start by the heterosexual interests and future entailed.It would learn us nothing that we do not already know about living in the same country as heterosexuals.We would be back to square one with an heterosexual majority within 100 years.Bisexuals are more heterosexual opportunists than gays.Their future by way of their eventual descendants,is not even bisexual.Which deprives the label of "bisexual" of any credibility.They are besides among the most notable elements who will anyway oppose any idea of a gay secession.At best,we could always try to gain their neutrality.But we must not regard them as allies,real or potential.Minus the celibacy and alledged sexual abstinence,a gay state would ressemble somewhat,though on a far larger scale,a monastic order like heterosexuals themselves created and participated in in fairly large numbers throughout history,and which prohibited any reproductive activity among their membership.

K6

[Mogul]

Sure, certain criteria shall be established at beginning, but as you can see, the opinions about "who is gay" differ in a high degree. I'm afraid, we must agree to disagree about this issue?    At the end, it will be the question of political views and legislation made by majority, if no consensus could be found. Personally, I would dislike any solution based on unnecessary cruelties and exclusion of brothers and sisters upon artificial criteria. In dubio pro reo.

P.S. Actually, what do you have against gays with children, or let's say more precesely: against gays who have had intercourse with females? Do you think they are "unclean" now for the remains of their lives?  You should know that many older gays had to take very hard struggles to acknowledge to themselves they are gay, and in between they found themselves with a wife and a bunch of kids. You shouldn't judge to severe upon them. Still, the question on bisexuals remains unanswered at all - at the beginning of the gay liberation they were regarded as true allies, so what now?

[K6]

f 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. Probably the most gays/lesbians with children would anyway prefer to stay where they are, so I do not actually see any necessity to address this question by means of restrictive legislation.

My view on this matter is that it should be adressed even before our state is established and the process of secession is set into motion.Differenciating gays from heterosexuals requires anyway no state apparatus.The micronation in which I am involved,the GPR,has since 1991 and on the books a law on undocumented parenthood which reads as follows (translation from the original text in French): art.72 of the Code of the Gay Parallel Republic (GPR),law of october 13,1991 - "Is not to be regarded as gay insofar as the present code is concerned the individual who has a descendance,without it being obvious or demonstrated that such a descendance was acquired outside the practice of heterosexuality".

K6

[K6]

In my eyes, all the strive for a "gay homeland" is about increasing civil rights of gays and lesbians - not about restricting them. What's sense does the gay state make, if it is invading the private sphere of its citizens even more than most other existing countries do? How can we prohibit our citizens from having children, if they would desire it? How could we deprive a citizen of his/her citizenship if he/she e.g. changes his sexual preferences upon, let's say, 20 years of exclusive gayness.

In realpolitiks,the so-called good nature of the human specie or the alledged good intentions of the individuals need some confirmation infered from the observable earthly interests in which they are involved.An indvidual is not in position to offer garanties which would exceed,say,his heterosexual interests,which serve no other purpose than an heterosexual continuity and future.In a gay state,citizens,by way of their homosexual orientation,will renounce any private competence in matters having to do with reproduction and demographics.The replacement of human ressources will be a competence of society,by way of immigration.Private enterprise in matters of demographics and reproduction should be left to heterosexual societies,because it represents in no way our interests or our real identity.

K6

[Mogul]

If we incorporate into the definition of a gay person individuals with descendants - most of whom are heterosexuals - the process of political secession with either founder,or more likely won`t even get started.

In my eyes, all the strive for a "gay homeland" is about increasing civil rights of gays and lesbians - not about restricting them. What's sense does the gay state make, if it is invading the private sphere of its citizens even more than most other existing countries do? How can we prohibit our citizens from having children, if they would desire it? How could we deprive a citizen of his/her citizenship if he/she e.g. changes his sexual preferences upon, let's say, 20 years of exclusive gayness. We can install certain criteria for gaining the citizenship, but we cannot spy into people's bedrooms. This is both impracticable and immoral. Any future gay state must offer its citizens more personal and civic liberties, not less than even most barbaric countries do; we can't agree into a fascist regime just to preserve the "gayness" of the state.

A carefull policy of granting the citizenship upon, let's say 3 years of permanent residency and participation in social projects and interviews with naturalization officers could select the few cheats among the applicants. This would be as much effective and would not have the negative side-effects connecting with extensive invasion into private sphere or post-naturalization controls.

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. Probably the most gays/lesbians with children would anyway prefer to stay where they are, so I do not actually see any necessity to address this question by means of restrictive legislation. This is, among other reasons, why some fervent supporters of equal rights oppose the gay separatism - they simply take the possibility of getting children into their personal life drafts and (rightfully) suppose that any "gay state" wouldn't be the best solution for them. Once again, many people oppose to gay separatism because they seek "one universal solution" which would suit everybody - and the gay state obviously does not suite this purpose. If they open their minds, they will see that complex problems sometimes require complex (multiple) solutions, with gay nationalism being a part of the entire concept.

We have already discussed some similar aspects of the gay development in some other threads on this forum:

http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.0
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=17.msg427#msg427

[K6]

They then start to ask about how are we going to reproduce ourselves or suggest that children might be born and in a couple of generations the heterosexuals would form the majority again etc. While some of the problems seem not entirely artificial (e.g. the "hetero child problem") and inspire us to look for creative solutions, other questions stem from distorted impression over the project.

If we incorporate into the definition of a gay person individuals with descendants - most of whom are heterosexuals - the process of political secession with either founder,or more likely won`t even get started.

K6

[K6]

On contrary, they mostly believe that a true equality is possible! The most opponents of "gay separatism" have no hostile motivations, they just do not see the necessety of a separation or do not believe such a thing is possible.

Not believing that gay secession is something possible would normally translate into indifference and absence of clearcut reaction to it.Lack of faith in the eventual achievement of such a goal like equality,or of sincerity in the proclamation of such an aim,would on the contrary warrant a justified fear that secession could become a reality before equality itself does.I say that because you will eventually encounter opponents whose central concern will be opposition to your own goal rather than the achievement of equality.In which case it will be difficult not to ask yourself which earthly interest,rather than which moral,ethical or humanitarian principle,is behind that opposition.At least such is the way one reasons and analyses in realpolitiks.

K6

[Mogul]

Opponents to gay self-determination either do not believe that equality of rights can be achieved between heterosexuals and gays living in a same society.

On contrary, they mostly believe that a true equality is possible! The most opponents of "gay separatism" have no hostile motivations, they just do not see the necessety of a separation or do not believe such a thing is possible. For many, homosexuality is just a minor part of their personality -  like the color of the eyes, and who are we to judge upon these people? For some of us the issue is more important than for others, few would define themeselve as forming a new-age ethnos based on their sexuality.

I for my part advocate the queer self-determination, but in the form when queer people and the "gay state" is integrate part of the entire world. There is no contradiction in this - any nation/people can rule upon itselfe, be aware of it's own cultural value and cooperate with other nations/peoples for the mutual benefit.

Sometimes people just misunderstand the idea, they really imagine we are agitating for deportation of all homosexuals against their will to a "ghetto", building a wall around and shoot at anyone who would try to escape. They then start to ask about how are we going to reproduce ourselves or suggest that children might be born and in a couple of generations the heterosexuals would form the majority again etc. While some of the problems seem not entirely artificial (e.g. the "hetero child problem") and inspire us to look for creative solutions, other questions stem from distorted impression over the project. An extremist view like "let's sterilize heteros in the area" can cause much harm as well. 

I remember reading an article from Julia Penelope ("Wimmin-and Lesbian-Only Spaces: Thought into action"), where she was fiercefully advocating that lesbians with male children should be excluded from the areas "Only for wimmin", even if the children were just couples of month old. She was deadly serious and really arguing over 2 or 3 pages about the perfidity of lesbians who would disguise their male babys into girl clothes and smuggle them into the "Wimmin areas", just imagine the danger thei imposed upon other wimmin!!! We should be catious that we do not place ourselves into similar ridiculousness by extreme theoretizing and concentrate our wits on how to include some of our folks in need of protection, rather than to exclude someone because he/she hadn't shown sufficient ideological tightness. The only reason for gay government (likewise gay state) to exist is to gain additional cultural and political benefit for the gay population as whole and for any given gay individuals in particular.

I am confident that once the gay state is really established and the benefits are visible, the support among the community will grow.

[K6]

Opponents to gay self-determination either do not believe that equality of rights can be achieved between heterosexuals and gays living in a
same society.Or they have no intention of making of that equality a reality.In which case,and since they either do not expect to win the race or
aren`t in it,they naturally expect gay separatism to eventually gain momentum,and with the passing of time - for gay separatism has all the time -
to become a reality in the place of an equality they aren`t believing in or aren`t really pursuing.And naturally,they fear not so much for their alledged moral principles than for their earthly positions under heterosexual domination,if not for their own heterosexual interests.

K6