Print

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

[K6]

Sure, the Vatican and other bigots would make much noise, but they wouldn't spend a penny to improve the situation of that poor devils.

With a gay independent State in the landscape,the Vatican will have to act cautiously.First,because we will then be able to out in complete impunity catholic priests who have homosexual interests (we should have a yellow press,just for that purpose).Second,because we will have one of the best
intelligence services,with eyes and ears in every country.And eventually with provocators as well,who will seduce homosexual priests and flush out that type of information.Imagine an article thus titled in the gay press of a country of ours: "ANALYSIS OF THE LAUNDRY WATER OF THE VATICAN: EVIDENCE OF LOT OF MASTURBATION GOING ON THERE".Or "CARDINAL OF THE HOLY SEE CAUGHT IN BED WITH A YOUNG MALE SECRETARY
AND OPERATIVE OF THE GAY REPUBLIC EMBASSY IN ROME: ALL THE IMAGES AVAILABLE ON PAGES 2 AND 3".

K6

[K6]

Smart diplomacy and pacting with the right allies would enlarge our safety. Spreading some rumour that we have inventeg the "gay bomb" turning brave heterosexuals into vicious faggots, we would protect our borders for millenia.

Well,we could spread wild rumors about what could happen to eventual invaders ending up as prisoners of war in our hands.Surely,you understand what I mean here,there is no need to be specific.

In my novel,there was such a collision between the gay colony and a foreign paramilitary invasion force.Part of the gay (also paramilitary) force
facing them was composed of young men who had almost no notion of what hethro foreign domination was,and therefore no fear whatsoever
of doing battle with the invaders.In the beginning,they thus set out to ambush and slaughter joyously the said invaders.The colony had forgot to inform them about the Geneva convention.After the war had ended in gay victory,prisonners beg gay colonial authorities not to deliver them into the hands of those cunning,cruel and barbarous young gay males.

K6

[K6]

Therefore we must abandon the idea that the ballance of powers in the world wouls affect us directly: no one would send a single soldier to us out of concern about the fate of poor heterosexuals persecuted in the gay state.

It is possible that a certain number of hethro States will not be pleased with the presence of a new geopolitical actor with a reproductive apparatus entirely independent from the heterosexual culture and political body.We could however have in advance an idea of what would be lying ahead by studying the current opposition to new reproductive technology in nowadays heterosexual societies.People who hold power or monopoly over something - like reproduction and/or ownership of human ressources - will expectedly not accept with much enthusiasm the loss of that power or
monopoly.

K6

[Mogul]

[..] 2) Exclusive national property over the human offspring coming out of those reproduction facilities 3) Exclusive national competence of ours over the education over the said offspring,including the determination of a gay sexual orientation 4) Exclusive moral and national authority over gay youth,wether originating from the above mentionned reproduction facilities or from immigration,along with social and historical role models for the gay youth.

I am inclined to agree to this suggestion, but with a very important correction: insted of "national" (=governmental) control I would insist on the "social" control. This is a very important difference: While the society consists out of many different groups, the government usually represents only a part of the entire political and social spectrum. It would be a very dangerous notion to lay every aspect of education into the hands of the government. No, this responsibility must be shared over a variety of responsible institutions - the government shall only create certain guildlines where it's really necessary. I am thinking of such institutions as libraries, museums, communal/clan education programs etc. While we of course shall create laws regulating the legal status of minors, their direct guidance and education is of no business to the state - instead the local communities/clans shall have the right to determin about their daily needs.

[..] *Complete independence* would be possible in a world where the UN would have no available State capable of enforcing its decisions.For example in a multipolar world with no global superpower. [..]

The recent history shows us, that any particular country (superpower or not) cares little abou the UN and the possible sanctions, if it has a real or imaginated interest in engaging military power. It should be clear to any sensible politician in our days, that war always has two loosers and no winners, but unfortunately there are always enough fools who believe they can win a war. Neither Saddam in 1991, nor Bush in 2003 were disturbed by the prospective of international sanctions or any other difficulties. The only contemplations such "military genious" make are of the following nature: 1) Can they realistically defeat the enemy, and 2) How much profit (either in ressources or land) can they win by accomplishing the aggression? Humanitary motivations never play any role, even if they are widely abused for propagana.

Therefore we must abandon the idea that the ballance of powers in the world wouls affect us directly: no one would send a single soldier to us out of concern about the fate of poor heterosexuals persecuted in the gay state. Sure, the Vatican and other bigots would make much noise, but they wouldn't spend a penny to improve the situation of that poor devils. Not that I was agitating for oppression of straights in the gay state (god beware!), but the only way to maintain souvereignity and prevent foreign occupation is the maintainance of sufficient defense forces and focussing on our own problems. Let the big boys play their games alone, and keep on smiling, but reserve the right to kill each and any agressor. Not the "servile" countries live safe, but those with good defence - among others North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba (directly in front of it's worst enemy - the US!). Smart diplomacy and pacting with the right allies would enlarge our safety. Spreading some rumour that we have inventeg the "gay bomb" turning brave heterosexuals into vicious faggots, we would protect our borders for millenia.

[..] As a culture and regardless of the fate of specific individuals,we will always exist.We have the ressources,but there is no gay country for them to go to. [..]

Here I must disagree with you. Though it is certainly true that homosexuals will always exist as they did before, we can very well be deprived of our culture, if we do not take care. Books can be burned, websites can be closed and historic records can be falsified. It is very easy for any future story-teller to make a famous gay ingeneur or mathematician to appear as hetero, and make of Adolf Hitler a homo. We will be well-advised to use the time slot now and secure our heritage, or what is left of this.

[K6]

We are *marginally independent* at the moment,in the sense that our human ressources and existence cannot be taken away from us.As a culture and regardless of the fate of specific individuals,we will always exist.We have the ressources,but there is no gay country for them to go to.

We would be *relatively independent* in a country of ours,where we would have control over our own human ressources by way of immigration.But that would not amount yet to complete independence.

*Complete independence* would entail the following: 1) Absolute control over reproductive activity in a country of ours,by way of assisted reproduction facilities,and exclusive national property of ours over the said facilities 2) Exclusive national property over the human offspring coming
out of those reproduction facilities 3) Exclusive national competence of ours over the education over the said offspring,including the determination of a gay sexual orientation 4) Exclusive moral and national authority over gay youth,wether originating from the above mentionned reproduction facilities or from immigration,along with social and historical role models for the gay youth.

The international environment would perhaps not allow us to have *complete independence*.For it would remain under hethro political control and in the service of the hethro interest,and particularly of its claimed monopoly over reproduction and ownership over human beings.By way of the UN,it could easily declare reproductive activity a monopoly of the hethro family.And it could take sanctions against us should we take steps to achieve *complete independence*.That could go as far as calling for a military intervention against our country.They do so for weapons of mass destruction alledged or real,why they wouldn`t for a reason as strategic as hethro monopoly over reproduction ?

*Complete independence* would be possible in a world where the UN would have no available State capable of enforcing its decisions.For example in a multipolar world with no global superpower.

K6

[K6]

To get the bow back to genocide: the actions toward our people might actually be interpreted as general genocide. Just let's look onto definition of the genocide, as it is included in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide :

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

( a ) Killing members of the group;
( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I would say, all the attempts to forcibly turn gays into straits, as well as the well-considered hate speeches of many political and religious leaders clearly fall into categories (b) and (c). Regarding the calculated effect of these speeches on the poorly educated and religiously blinded masses, category (a) is readily accepted as well. The brain-washing of gay kids and imposing straight culture on them, also the wide-spread custom of taking away children from the "bad influence" of their homosexual parent fall into categorie (e). To make the list complete we remember the US- and Italian legislation prohibiting lesbian women from fertility medicine.

The exact same thought occured to me­.Allowing no independent reproductive activity of ours amounts to genocide.International
conventions,however,have no soldiers and no police to enforce them.A perpetrator with a strong enough State structure which has not been first defeated in war will get away with genocide.The only way to be secure is to have our own State.

K6

[Mogul]

To get the bow back to genocide: the actions toward our people might actually be interpreted as general genocide. Just let's look onto definition of the genocide, as it is included in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide :

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

( a ) Killing members of the group;
( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I would say, all the attempts to forcibly turn gays into straits, as well as the well-considered hate speeches of many political and religious leaders clearly fall into categories (b) and (c). Regarding the calculated effect of these speeches on the poorly educated and religiously blinded masses, category (a) is readily accepted as well. The brain-washing of gay kids and imposing straight culture on them, also the wide-spread custom of taking away children from the "bad influence" of their homosexual parent fall into categorie (e). To make the list complete we remember the US- and Italian legislation prohibiting lesbian women from fertility medicine. Some will contradict to the aspiration that we are subject to a genocede, because the reported nubers of our deads are not as high as in Rwanda or Bosnia, but please take into account that genocide is defined as any of the above actions (one suffices), and the above category (e) is referring purely to the cultural genocide. The intention is namely to eliminate a distinct culture by the means of interrupting the transfer of this culture to the young generations. Besides, an intended and not yet fully completed genocide is as well to be punished, indeed the crime is well described in the next section:

Article III

The following acts shall be punishable:

( a ) Genocide;
( b ) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
( c ) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
( d ) Attempt to commit genocide;
( e ) Complicity in genocide.

I would say that many of the catholic, anglican and orthodox religious leaders fall into the categorie (b),(c) and (e); many islamic leaders additionally are involved into fullfilled genocide. Many politicians worldwide, police officers in certain countries, medicos in the past, teachers and parents clearly fall into several of the above categories as well.

The convention also clearly states in what way an orderly governed state is expected to deal with those involved into a genocide:

Article IV

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."

The recent reportedly issued Fathwa of the Iraqui Shiit's leader al-Sistani is only the tip of the Eisberg.

[K6]

Therefore I would suggest that the Gay State shall respect the copyright of living authors, whereas all works of deceased authors shall be regarded as public domain. This rule would both enable protection of authors and at the same time serve our cultural needs. In case the government decides to spread any particular work of art for free, it can pay the authors for the right to do so.

I`d say that what has to do with economics is negociable.We may choose the type of economical regime we want.In that respect,we are like the Japanese under Emperor Meiji`s reform (1868).Most of which is economical and technical in heterosexual societies can probably be imported by us without modification.It won`t change any more our way of life or our culture than the importation of modern western technology changed the Japanese culture.Economics and technology belong into the category of the *means*.What we cannot import from heterosexual societies are their aims and methods in the field of demography.The demography of a viable gay independent State will have to be entirely nationalized,with no room left for private reproductive initiative.

K6

[Mogul]

We could try to persuade gay authors to transfer their copyrights to the gay State by way of their wills once the said State is in existence.But not compel them to do so by way of nationalization. [..]

Initially, the copyright was not intended to serve financial interests of large corporations, as we see it happening everywhere nowadays.

The original sense of introducing the copyright legislation was to encourage authors to create new works. Before the copyright laws were enacted, anyone could steal the intellectual property of any poor author and profit on his costs. Thanks to copyright legislation, successfull writers were enabled to live from the fruits of their works.

Therefore I would suggest that the Gay State shall respect the copyright of living authors, whereas all works of deceased authors shall be regarded as public domain. This rule would both enable protection of authors and at the same time serve our cultural needs. In case the government decides to spread any particular work of art for free, it can pay the authors for the right to do so.

[K6]

Once we have effective and legal control over our own territory, we are free to introduce our own legislation on this subject, in the wa which serves our people the best. 

We could try to persuade gay authors to transfer their copyrights to the gay State by way of their wills once the said State is in existence.But not
compel them to do so by way of nationalization.Gay government edition and propaganda will exist anyway as a competitor,better equiped to produce in much larger quantity and to saveguard its cultural heritage and creations.If some gay authors think that their own creations can survive outside the secure cultural transmission of a gay State,let them play against the odds of the hethro side and with the piece of paper called copyright.

K6

[K6]

In the meanwhile, we are clearly in the duty of gathering previous ideas, re-thinking them, and introducing new ones. Simple archiving of material in digital form and catalogization clearly belong to the fair use and can be performed already now.

That`s what I had in mind,an activity of exchange unrelated to the copyright.

K6

[Mogul]

And why couldn`t we run together a propaganda mill of our own in this forum,without claiming any copyright ? Do you claim a copyright for what you post here ? Do I claim one ? I am happy to contribute without copyright to this forum.I am interested only in producing effects and reactions,in the direction of self-determination and among gays.The hell with the copyright.

No, I do not claim copyright for my contributions here! Also nobody objected to being quoted here - but one never knows, what surprises are waiting for us (I was once threatened with a lawsuit here if I would not delete a unhappy member's account within 24 h)! Besides, I am not entirely against the copyright - I am only against its abuse. As a copyright possessor I also would dislike the idea that somebody would commercially use my publications without my permission. But by writing a political statement, one should of course be happy when others find the contribution worthy of re-distributing to help achieve more audience.

I agree with you about the abusive nature of some copyright claims, which is e.g. clearly the case when essential works of a deceased gay author may not be reproduced without paying a fee to his distant straight relatives. Unfortunately, my personal opinion on this issue hardly matters, as long as I reside in a highly commercialised country with elaborated legislation and effective persecution. A lawsuit for indemnification for a copyright infringement can be pretty ruineous a thing - therefore we must of course act within the margines of our respective legislations. There are, however, certain possibilities for the "fair use", and we shall take advantage of those legal possibilities. It is, however, not especially adviseable to discuss the ways and means on a public forum like this one.  Once we have effective and legal control over our own territory, we are free to introduce our own legislation on this subject, in the wa which serves our people the best. 

In the meanwhile, we are clearly in the duty of gathering previous ideas, re-thinking them, and introducing new ones. Simple archiving of material in digital form and catalogization clearly belong to the fair use and can be performed already now.

[K6]

Unfortunately, the copyright laws prohibit any project which is intended to supply less wealthy individuals online with original material. Therefore we are currently doomed to offer bibliography lists and self-written reviews, in the hope that people can either buy the stuff on their own or find it in a local library. As the copyright-laws in our countries are unprobable to change in the next future, it would be a good and realistic solution to entertain gay libraries/film archives, spread over the world sufficiently tightly. All this is solely a question of ressources and organization.

And why couldn`t we run together a propaganda mill of our own in this forum,without claiming any copyright ? Do you claim a copyright for what you post here ? Do I claim one ? I am happy to contribute without copyright to this forum.I am interested only in producing effects and reactions,in the direction of self-determination and among gays.The hell with the copyright.

K6

[Mogul]

An example of how the cultural oppression functions nowadays in western democracies:

Oklahoma City Libraries To Move Books On Gay Families

February 17, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)  Nine months after state lawmakers called on publicly funded libraries to remove books on gay families Oklahoma City's 's Metropolitan Library Commission has voted to move the books to a separate section available only to adults. The LGBT-themed books are geared to children's reading levels - from just learning to read to about age 12. The new section will be called the "parenting collection" and lumps books on gay families and growing up gay with books on child abuse, domestic violence and substance abuse. Oklahoma state legislators last May passed a non-binding resolution telling libraries that books written for children about gay families should be placed in Adults Only sections.  They specifically criticized "King & King," "Daddy's Roommate," "The Duke Who Outlawed Jelly Beans" and "Heather Has Two Mommies." The new section will be employed at all 17 libraries in the Oklahoma City-County library system. Eight citizens addressed the library board before the vote.  All were opposed to moving the books. One was a gay pastor - the Rev. Dr. E. Scott Jones, of the Cathedral of Hope in Oklahoma City. "Look at me. Am I someone you should be afraid of?" he said . "Please do not insult me and others like me by passing this reprehensible proposal that segregates us and equates us with child abuse, drug abuse and family violence." Karen Parsons, a lesbian and a former teacher, said she was "appalled" by the proposal. "It's not up to the library to be the thought police or to act as parents," she said. Despite the criticism the commission voted 12-to-1 for the plan.

©365Gay.com 2006[/color] Source: http://365gay.com/Newscon06/02/021706okBooks.htm

[K6]

In the distant future, if/when the gay state shall be established, we should probably consider laws restricting copyright to, let's say 10 years after production date (like patents). Alternatively, the gay state (or our foundation) might buy the rights from the rightfull owners after 10 years of commercial use and distribute the works freely or for a symbolic fee. Some works may be performed with the funds of the gay state (which is one of its important tasks).

In a politically independent gay civilisation without family structures or lineages,the proper heir of everything,including litterary productions,should be the State.Individuals,however,will not necessarily trust State agencies,even if they are gay.And other social structures will anyway replace the family and allow for the normal transmission by way of wills.The individual will still have the possibility of transmitting inheritance to individuals of his choice,only that these individuals won`t be relatives.Family names,however,won`t serve any purpose and could eventually be abolished.They could be replaced in official documents - like identity cards - by the "vintage year" of the individual,that is his year of birth.Instead of rivalvy in reference to dynasty as in heterosexual society,individuals would boast about their respective generationd and their accomplishments.

K6