Heheh... funny. I'm inclined to agree with Vicky's View on readily embracing "folks" of the queer persuasion, but how long will that last before we start giving birth to heteros? We've got to take into account that there's a possibility that our nation could quite conceivably be over run with heterosexuals within three generations. ...
Strange how others here have had the same worry,
Solo. I say:
Take three steps back and look at the whole picture once again.
Why would people who are
heterosexual (and therefore in some cases our sworn enemies) even
want to "overrun" a nation created
by and for homosexuals through non-warlike means? If we have anything to fear on the "overrun-o-meter," it will be the overt acts of aggression that will follow our founding by nations who see it as their "god-
(or insert other deity of choice/preference here)-given duty" to destroy is as
perverts, infidels, what have you.
I originally felt, like some others
(and you?), that we should take a more overt, aggressive stance at control of hetero-immigration, but as the reality will likely mirror a very
low rate of hetero-immigration, that problem should and must be addressed down the road. Addressing it up front, i.e., in our founding sentiments, it can and will do more harm than help, making us look exclusionary and much more like those whom we seek to escape rather than those we wish to become.
This raises an entirely different issue, however: Members must also consider that we will likely--once nationhood has been reached--need either to have an army (dressed in
pink uniforms?

) or alliances with very strong, favorably-minded neighbors. Another option for protection will be the status of "protectorate," something the Brits and French used to accord to weaker nations before they began exporting their inhabitants as slaves...