Print

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

[jemiko]

Hi folks, I am one of those who have brought up the demographics issue in the past. As I am merely an occasional observor of this project, rather than a member, I generally refrain from posting any messages; however, on this issue I just wanted to restate that the majority status of homosexuals in any 'gay' nation would not be at risk from a flood of heterosexuals immigrating into the country, but rather from the growing presence of heterosexual children of its own gay and bisexual citizens.

Gay parenting may still be a relatively minor occurance, but it is one which is increasing each year; especially as gay couples are observing other gay couples who have children. This is a healthy, natural impulse. In any gay-friendly country, this process will be even more accelerated. It is not from without that gay majority status will be challenged, but from within.

As this point will be plainly obvious to many people, it serves little purpose to overlook it in your planning. This is why some people (I must admit, myself included) tend to conclude that a gay-majority nation would be impossible to maintain. I have suggested before that perhaps a better approach would be to pursue a nation which as part of its founding principles vows to treat all people equally, regardless of sexuality (or race, gender, ect.) This might be more productive than affixing a 'gay' label to the proposed state which would prove innacurate or embarassing to the nation two or three generations down the road - as well as unacceptible to an increasing percentage of that nation's own citizens.

Jeff

[Vizier]

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...

[Vizier]

Dear and most respected Advocatus Diaboli (aka Gunnar),

Shouldn't that have been advocatus diabolus or advocati diaboli    

[Solo]

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.  Albeit, more accepting and open-mined heterosexuals, they'll be... without a doubt, but as we are still a minority, we should keep our eye on the ball; not who pitched it, who'll catch it, who's watching it...  just exactly where to hit it to guide it where you want it to go - out of the park.  Raise some kick@$$ kids and the LGBT Community's Nation will be a success, regardless of how many citizens comprise our sub-cultures. 

*I'm a wee bit nervous for popping many balloons with this post a little early in the thread*

'Tis better to give it thought and accept it now, rather than later, right? *forced laugh*

[Mogul]

Dear and most respected Advocatus Diaboli (aka Gunnar),

indeed I indicated that Australian government is doing wrongs to gay and lesbian people wishing to immigrate to Australia. I didn't dare a statement about whether Australia does itself a good service or not by proceeding this way. I even can understand, why Australia has this kind of immigration policy: they want to have educated, healthy and fertile heterosexuals to increase countrie's population and gross national product. It may sound cruel, but analphabetes, old, sick and "non-breeding" people seem not to fit into Australian profile of ideal immigrants. The same way heterosexual people (may them have a lot of different positive qualifications) probably do not exactly fit into the gay state's profile of ideal immigrants (guess why?!). The immigration policy makes no judgements about the "worth" of an individual as such - it only reflects the countrie's needs for some kind of immigrants - the same way as currently carpenters, dentists and marine biologists seem to be more valuable immigrants for Australia than chemists or philosophers. Out of the same reasons gay people would be more valueable immigrants for a gay state than straight people - without the latter ones being less valuable citizens.

It seems to me that my point of view, expressed in the earlier contributions, was not understood the way I meant it. When we are considering the GLBT people as "folk" and are intended to create a nation, we are not talking about an ideal state with open borders for everybody. Yes, straights are not better and not worse than homos, but in the most countries straights let us feel different and do not respect your "eye-color" argument. In an ideal world, too, it would be not interesting of what nationality a person is, but in the real world it makes a difference: Russians and Turks cannot just go and settle in Germany or Canada if they wanted, Mexicans are not allowed to go and take a job in the US, and Australians cannot just go and buy an off-shore property in Brasilia. Israel readily accepts jewish people from all over the world, but refuses Arabes. Why does all this "injustice" exist? The answer is pretty simple: every country is just bothered with it's own problems and therefore cares only about its own prosperity and its own interest. The governments are working for the best of their own people and do not mind much the problems of other nations. Therefore I do not see anything unusually cruel or immoral in caring in first line for the best of our own people. Yes, there ARE many heterosexuals in poverty, in need of medicine and protection, but the same is true for our people, who are additionally subject of hate and violence just because they are gays or lesbians.

What is wrong in giving these people, who are less fortunate than their heterosexual follow creatures, additional priviledges for immigration into a country specially made for them? A GLBT-state would have a vital interest in remaining a GLBT-state, as otherwise the project makes no sense at all, right? Again, once in the country, everyone should be treated equally - including the right to elect and be elected to any office. On the other hand, I can understand the argumentation of people who have concerns about the "straight immigrants" elected into "sensitive" offices (defense, intelligence etc.) - there is a real danger of infiltration by foreign powers. But the same for sure might be true for catholics and a bunch of other "unhappy orientations" - so at the end a carefull investigation in every single case will be required anyway - being a catholic or straight as such is of course not a reason of keeping a person out of office and even not a character failure... Hm, in the case of a catholic homosexual I am not that sure... (OK, kick me if you like - this was my private and inofficial opinion as agnostic individual).

Advocatus Dei (aka Vicky the Mogul)

[Gunnar]

I just wonder if Mogul wants to repeat the mistakes made by today's (mostly) str8 governments. That's not needed: He (Mogul) has made pretty clear, that Australia is doing wrong. But to draw the conclusion, that a Government like the one we are dreaming of, has to repeat the mistakes made again and again, with no excuse but the childish "the others did also" seems to be a very strange idea. Just weird. Or - completly nuts.

EQUALITY DOES NOT WORK ONE WAY !!!

Sexual orientation is not a decision. And we should not make decisions because of such. We should, and here are my two cents on the Issue, decide on the reasons like if we can trust the people. And not if people have blue, green or brown eyes. This thread does not enlighten me, because we are talking exactly about that - eyecolors.
Think about it. Please.

Regards,

Gunnar

[Solo]

If the people are to vote officials to office, then it shouldn't matter if they are gay or straight.  We are so consumed with how homophobia has affected us that we are failing to see that we too are guilty of the same thing that the homophobes have committed; showing no regard for heterosexuals that are NOT homophobic.  "What hurts one of us hurts us all" is the mentality that has led society to accept that which is different.  Let us not take for granted or alienate our heterosexual champions and protectors who don't see our sexuality when they look at us.  These folks that see love through compassionate eyes when they cast their gaze upon us deserve to be at our side; they deserve to be in-tow, they deserve to be pushed ahead, but they do not deserve to be left behind because they've served their purpose. 
We are who we are and as long as we remain true to that which is important, which is that you can't judge a book by its cover, but only by its contents.  I am the first person to condemn heterosexuals, believe me.  When I hate them all, I HATE THEM ALL.  That's based on centuries upon centuries of their bull$#!t.  Once I've regained perspective, I am hopeful that they will be able to be viewed, realistically, as a whole... one day.

See what happens when animals reproduce out of control and safety measures aren't taken beforehand?  A mess.

[Mogul]

I have to disagree to the sentence cited below. Every country in the world executes certain restrictions on immigration, most regulations prefer healthy young professionals and wealthy businesmen. Australia even clearly prefers immigration of heterosexual people, giving additional points for the (heterosexual) spouse, gays and lesbians being filtered out by a very sofisticated point system. Therefore I do not see any unusual cruelty in the possibility of preferring gay/lesbian immigrants by the laws of the (at the moment theoretical) gay/lesbian state. Indeed, shall such a state preserve it's gay/lesbian nature, there will be practical need in establishing regulations for a preferably gay/lesbian migration.

Interestingly, by regulation of the immigration the society prevents any need for the "apartheid" of its citizens: once in the country, all citizens can be treated equally and have absolutely the same rights, as all of us expect a just government to proceed.

We should be much aware of the weird irony of the history: the former victims too easy tend to become oppressors in turn, if they get the chance to do so. The unfortunate policy of the actual Israeli government against palestinians and ethnic arabs demonstrates this danger as well as the silent oppression of whites by the black majority in the modern South Africa.

So, my thinking is back to the "everybody is welcome with open arms" - just as you cannot choose who your brothers and sisters in a family are going to be, you should not be allowed to choose who your fellow countrymen should and should not be...

[Vizier]

Apartheid was not a noble or good thing, agreed.  And also, the idea that droves of str8 people are going to overrun our little country when it finally exists seems a little overly dramatic.  After further pondering the situation, wouldn't it be wiser to cross this bridge once we arrive at it? If there should for some odd reason be a mass influx of non-gays, we can take action at that time, no? So, my thinking is back to the "everybody is welcome with open arms" - just as you cannot choose who your brothers and sisters in a family are going to be, you should not be allowed to choose who your fellow countrymen should and should not be...

[Gunnar]

Don,

I can't agree with you on this point. This kind of politics is called Apartheid, and i will for sure not taking part in such. The white people have done that in South Africa to the black ones.
For sure it is better to have no str8s there, than making this kind of politics. But on the other hand - is it possible to make that come true? I really don't think so. It's a dream. Why?
Well, there will be children in this country (or kids ) and for sure not all of them will turn gay. What to do with those having spent their whole lifetime in that gay country and now straight - bring them to the borders and kick them out if they have become adults? Don't they have a right to have a say in politic Issues also - as well as Gays would have?
WE are claiming equality. Now, we have to give equal rights also, or all our claim about Equality is use- and senseless. Because it turns out to be a lie then.
If we demand equal rights, we have to give equal rights also. What, if the USA would kick out all non-straight people, bringing them to the border(Deportation)?
It would lead to an outcry, with every right to. Do you really want to remove people from (or not allow to get) their posts because of their sexuality ? I can't believe it.
Regards

Gunnar

[donClark]

gunna

I don't want to opresse anyone, I just  feel that  straight should not be allowed to be a  member of the  governent.  this is all

Well, Günter, one thing is clear: we want this country be a gay (and lesbian) country, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense, right? The point is, what mechanisms shall we apply then to achieve such a goal? Sure, oppression of the heteros is the easy way, but this would be then a country where we probably wouldn't feel comfortable as well... There are many other instruments to control structure of the population - without oppressing anyone.

[Mogul]

Well, Günter, one thing is clear: we want this country be a gay (and lesbian) country, otherwise the whole thing makes no sense, right? The point is, what mechanisms shall we apply then to achieve such a goal? Sure, oppression of the heteros is the easy way, but this would be then a country where we probably wouldn't feel comfortable as well... There are many other instruments to control structure of the population - without oppressing anyone.

[Gunnar]

A quota system? Str8s invading the gay country? Well, why not? If we are opressed for being gay in some countries, then we need to do the same to the straight ones in our country? What the heck make us better then? Sometimes i really have the impression that Gays are the most intolerant people I know of. But I hope this is an Impression only. The fact needs to be discussed. Did I say fact? That shows pretty clear that this Impression is really there, that it appears as a fact to me. Proof me wrong. Please.

[Mogul]

Jesus, NO! Please, no quota system! In order to ensure that gays and lesbians stay the majority (as this appears to be politically desired), there are a lot of different instruments. Whereas gays and lesbians would be enabled to immigrate alone due to their sexual orientation (which is related to their oppression in other countries), a heterosexual person would have to present good reason to persuade the immigration office that his application should be accepted. If the said heterosexual individuum is being oppressed in his homeland, he or she normally has possibility to apply for asylum in many other countries in Western Europe or North Nmerica. Of course, in very urgent cases the person should be accepted, but this will probably cause no problems. The second contingent of immigrants will consist of people with urgently required qualifications, no matter gay or straight. As there are many gay or lesbian people with high qualifications, they would probably come by free peaces in higher amounts than their heterosexual colleagues.

All in all, I do not think that straights would come in big hords neither are they expected to cause serious problems. Besides, what straight boy would come by free peaces to a country full of gay men and no other women that fully desinterested butchy lesbians?

Also, just how inclusive should we be? Would we have a quota system as other countries have viz. foreign nationals, but one based on a limitation of no more than X% straight (non-gay) of the total population? It would appear useful, as, after all, if the place eventually becomes overrun with non-gays, it would all be in vain, no?

[Mogul]

Hm, sounds like Netherlands to me... Generally, you have right, Don. Of course, in some countries this dream already became true, but unfortunately in the bigger part of this planet gays and lesbians live quite unsafe and are deprived of basic human rights such as freedom to live in peace with a beloved one and stand for eachother. In many countries gays live under death penalty danger or at least are threatened by long years in prison. For all these people a possibility to find anew home in a safe environment, however poor from economical point of view, would be maybe the last chance to rescue their lives and freedom. But also for those who suffer under social oppression in some parts of the "western world" it would possibly give a chance for a free and self-determined live.

I honestly do think that we need a homeland.  Somewhere that we can go, to feel safe from harm, and safe from homophobia.  Somewhere that we can walk down the street holding hands with our partners, or friends.  Where we can marry the ones that we love, and where we can die without fear that our loved ones will be absent from our rooms.

As to the government, this would do the same job as any good government shall do: care for its people at the best of its ability. I am sure that the few heterosexuals, who would choose to join our effort, are as much appropriate for any responsible position, as a gay man or a lesbian woman can be. I don't think we should discriminate against anybody, especially not against sexual minorities. Because WE know the best, how it feels like when you are discriminated in jour job because your sexual preferences are different from the majority. A straight secretary of defense is as good as anybody else!  

We need to have a government that represents all gay people, that is for gay people.  A government that answers to the people only.  We need to have a government that has a mandate to do no harm to gay people, and all rights be given to the citizens no matter what their sexual orentation is.  Because I assume there will be heterosexual people living there as well.  Though in my view there shall be NO heterosexual people allowed into the goverment that is elected, it should be saved for gay people only.