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.htmlWell, 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.