While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history.
People who read no books about history won`t encounter the idea of self-determination,and won`t conceive of its possible application to our situation as gays.
How silly of me to have failed to grasp the backward, merely 'sexual' character of the homosexual minority in the US. Our attitudes must be so frustratingly infantile to you. Far better that we should step back and learn from you; how lucky we are to have your guidance to follow. And to compound my error by not considering the prospect that only Europeans and Canadians read books on history-- unforgivable on my part, many apologies.
To contribute my humble opinion to this debate (which was overdue anyway
): Rumors about Americans being unable to read, write and speak in whole sentences seem to be strongly exaggerated.
Despite the wide-spread opinion, many Americans indeed
do read books and even learn foreign languages. Some of them were even reported to visit the city library by times. How comes now that Europeans and Canadians often have such prejudices about Americans? Well, Europeans and Canadians watch to much American TV – and judge from idiots on the screen about the entire American population. It must be said in our defence, however, that solely Americans themselves are responsible for:
- people who they let into their TV studios (incl. their presidents); and
- the omission to watch Canadian and European TV in turn.
A nation which brings out such pantry cooks as we are lucky to know, cannot be that much hopeless.
As for the history as such, one thing is true – Americans indeed do not know what a total war on their own territory might be. No hurrican, no single terroristic attack can be compared with the experience of an area-wide sheelfire, with entire countries being almost wept out from the landscape. In Europe we know from our parents and grandparents how it was during the nazi time and under communist regume, how people were haunted from one edge of the word to another – and this is an experience almost all European families have in common. It's not easy to be an optimist if your complete family was sent to Sibiria, disowned 3 times within 75 years, one grandfather fallen in the age of 21, another spent 15 years in Gulag and so on – the list is long. This is a story almost every European can tell you about his own family with only minor variations. Therefore it is indeed difficult for us to share the optimism so wide-spread among most Americans – we simply know it better.
On the other side, one can not seriously claim that American
gays can learn from others how to act properly. It's simply a matter of fact that American gays were pioneers in the post-war gay rights movement. They were also the first to deal with the AIDS epidemic – and have lost the dynamics in the eighties. From the eighties, Europe fulfilled a remarkable developement in gay rights and seems to be the one to lead now. Not that Europe were homogenously progressive, but the most liberal countries like Netherlands lay on our continent. From those pioneers we all learn and get our inspirations.
The same way I was sometimes asked to fill a form an hour or so before the landing of my flight in a foreign country,in which I undertook not to work while present there, non-gay visitors would sign an immigration form in which they would undertake to have no reproductive activity while in a gay Republic.
Do you mean "reproductive activity" = male-female sex? I think everybody can reproduce himself how much it pleases him/her with whoever possible –what harm shall happen to the gay state from this? And how shall we come to such a thing as to prohibit somebody from having sex? By times you make me fear, K6!
We could waive the visa requirement for close relatives or persons with an invitation from a gay resident and citizen.The basic characteristic of independence is that we would choose the non-gays we are interested in dealing with,and exclude the problematic elements of the heterosexual societies without any possibility of appeal.Older non-gays beyond the age of reproduction,and with gay descendants already citizens and residents of the gay State,could be made permanent foreign residents.We have to take in consideration here those heterosexual parents who protected their gay kids,who have thus rendered a service to the gay nation,and who deserve a reward for their contribution.
Certainly very sensible suggestion. Generally I would pleadge for the right of permanent residency for dependents of citizens – be it their old parents or their minor children.
3) All individuals from the onset of puberty and capacity for participation in reproduction and rearing of other human beings to be regarded as adults,and sorted into heterosexuals and gays.In case of doubt,the individual to be regarded as heterosexual.The age of majority could be set at 15 or 16 at the lowest,or at 18 at the latest.
Why "sort" them? Let's say there is simply no right for citizenship by birth, instead the right for permanent residency for minor children of citizens untill they become full-age? The gay ones can subsequently apply for citizenship. Also I would suggest that between application and naturalization sufficient time shall pass; instead "in doubt" the applicant shall be counted as gay (if he himself assures being so). Who shall anyway determine the "gayness" of the person not engaged in
any sexual activities? I think it should suffice to keep the possibility to withdrow the citizenship if it comes clearly out that the applicant provided wrong informations about his sexual orientation.
See also:
http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=17.0http://forum.gayrepublic.org/index.php?topic=32.0
