A Country for GLBT people

[??????????]

Gay people are not the most persecuted people in history.  A statement like that only minimizes the suffering of people who were truly persecuted.  Being gay, unlike being a woman or being black or even being Jewish, is a choice - and if you dispute that then how is one to identify a gay person?  We can only identify them through their sex acts.  If gays have been persecuted throughout history, it has only been because they decided to have gay sex, which is a choice.  To say that it is not a choice denies the free will of Man.

Your idea for a homo country (let's call it Sodom) is interesting, but kind of gay.  For one thing, you left out the part about all the AIDS.  Next, do you really think an army of nancy-boys will be able to defend your country?  Let's get real here.

The biggest problem, however, is that Gay Land is dependent on other countries for citizens, as gays obviously can't reproduce.  What if other countries decide to retain their "gay" population, or perhaps they even come up with a pill to cure gayness like it would any other disease?  The population of Gay Land would rapidly decline.  There would be no young children to support an aging population.  All innovation (if there was any in the first place) would disappear.  Sodom II would in the end not be destroyed by God, but through its own inefficiency.  The underlying problem in all this is a denial of Nature, which is the essence of the homosexual movement ... I would actually support the creation of such a place, because it would serve as an example for future generations who deny Nature and are ignorant of sexuality.  Basically: our philosophies change, Nature endures forever.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, much like you being an idiot probably isn't your choice.

The bolded part is actually a concern. This is what really pisses me off about Vanderblubb, he actually posts valid points in a whole crop of BS.

[King]

It's called Fire Island, New York.

[Хahar 🤔]

Gay people are not the most persecuted people in history.  A statement like that only minimizes the suffering of people who were truly persecuted.  Being gay, unlike being a woman or being black or even being Jewish, is a choice - and if you dispute that then how is one to identify a gay person?  We can only identify them through their sex acts.  If gays have been persecuted throughout history, it has only been because they decided to have gay sex, which is a choice.  To say that it is not a choice denies the free will of Man.

Your idea for a homo country (let's call it Sodom) is interesting, but kind of gay.  For one thing, you left out the part about all the AIDS.  Next, do you really think an army of nancy-boys will be able to defend your country?  Let's get real here.

The biggest problem, however, is that Gay Land is dependent on other countries for citizens, as gays obviously can't reproduce.  What if other countries decide to retain their "gay" population, or perhaps they even come up with a pill to cure gayness like it would any other disease?  The population of Gay Land would rapidly decline.  There would be no young children to support an aging population.  All innovation (if there was any in the first place) would disappear.  Sodom II would in the end not be destroyed by God, but through its own inefficiency.  The underlying problem in all this is a denial of Nature, which is the essence of the homosexual movement ... I would actually support the creation of such a place, because it would serve as an example for future generations who deny Nature and are ignorant of sexuality.  Basically: our philosophies change, Nature endures forever.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, much like you being an idiot probably isn't your choice.

The bolded part is actually a concern. This is what really pisses me off about Vanderblubb, he actually posts valid points in a whole crop of BS.

Well, the whole idea is BS in the first place, so just because there are valid points doesn't make his BS any better.

[Torie]

If we traduce living in an neighborhood where all the houses look the same, why would we have a different opinion when it comes to the fauna? An all GLBT environment would be as boring as hell is my little thought. And that is before dealing with all those little annoying practical details about how the society would actually work over the generations.

[Platypus]

This sounds more like Marienne's form of erotica than anything else. I don't care to imagine the scene at his keyboard when he was typing that everyone needs to serve in the military.


Also, the idea already exists

[Brittain33]

Granted that the whole idea is ridiculous and is only useful for a thought experiment...

The lack of reproduction isn't an issue. The population would replenish every year with people living in the other countries who come out and then move to the gay country.

In the meantime, taxes would be low because of the very low dependent ratio. Few kids in school and no medical costs associated with childbirth or raising children. It would be tough for people to reproduce through insemination or whatever knowing there was a 90+% chance their children would leave the country upon reaching puberty. Whatever medical costs are associated with AIDS wouldn't come close to matching the medical and workforce costs of caring for children. I think people's associations may be influenced by having lived through the 1980s and overestimating the effects of a minority's illness.

For the record, I've been out for 15 years and never had a friend or acquaintance die of the disease. I likely do know people who are living with HIV, but they almost certainly seroconverted a long time ago. Certainly new people are contracting HIV every year, but it's not like it was.

Anyway, the lack of a common language would probably pose an insurmountable problem.

On another note, since my brother and sister are both parents, I expect to be a caregiver for my parents. My partner is an only child and will be in the same role for his parents. It would cause problems for society in general for childless people like us to leave when we are most beneficial to rounding out families. (And this raises another problem for the gay country, the flipside of the dependency ratio; I'm counting on my nephews and niece to make sure I don't end up on a sidewalk in my golden years.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Granted that the whole idea is ridiculous and is only useful for a thought experiment...

The lack of reproduction isn't an issue. The population would replenish every year with people living in the other countries who come out and then move to the gay country.

A virtually all-immigrant country has serious issues though (unless it's a joke tax haven with barely any people anyway.) Then there's also the issue of children born there, there's still going to be artificial insemination, bisexuals, or maybe issues of lesbians getting gay males to do it with them just for reproduction (that's an interesting concept, a gay male prostitute who has sex only with lesbian females for procreative purposes). Obviously most will be heterosexual, and that's going to create issues.

[Phony Moderate]

Gay people are some of not the most persecuted people in history. A statement like that only *minimizes the suffering of people who were truly persecuted.  Being gay, unlike being a woman or being black or even being Jewish, is not a choice. - and if you dispute that then how is one to identify a gay person?  We can identify them through their sex acts, but also through other things such as acting like the opposite sex.  If Gays have been persecuted throughout history, it has only been because they have gay sex, which is not a choice, as people can't ignore thier impulses.  To say that it is not a choice denies the free will of Man then being straight is a choice as well.

Your idea for a homo normal country is interesting, but kind of gay, obviously, as it is made up of gay people. For one thing, you left out the part about all the AIDS.  Next, do you really think an army of nancy-boys will be able to defend your country?  Let's get real here.

There is no problem, however, because Gay a normal country can be independent, as gays obviously can reproduce, because male gay people and female gay people can use sperm from a jar. What if other countries decide to retain their "gay" population, or perhaps they even come up with a pill to cure gayness like it would any other disease?  The population of Gay Land would rapidly decline.  There would be no young children to support an aging population.  All innovation (if there was any in the first place) would disappear.  Sodom II would in the end not be destroyed by God, but through its own inefficiency.  The underlying problem in all this is a denial of Nature, which is the essence of the homosexual movement ... I would actually support the creation of such a place, because it would serve as an example for future generations who deny Nature and are ignorant of sexuality.  Basically: our philosophies change, Nature endures forever.

Fixed.