I've been on a few threads that are focused on questions surrounding gay issues.
There is still a huge amount of homophobia and a feeling that "I don't mind gays, they must just tone-down the queeny behaviour or get out of my space".
Although it's a radical idea (not necessarily totally original), perhaps we should get out of the homophobic faces. Based on historic discrimmination and hate, as well as much international current sentiment, perhaps it would be best to give gays and lesbians, as well as all our transgender friends and liberal "homosexualist" supporters a country of our own.
I wonder where such a country might be placed, and who could become a citizen (and on what basis)? Should it have consciption and a form of socialism?
I always made a sick joke during the Bush years: give us Iraq after the natives have been dealt with. We'll re-decorate Babylon overnight! However, that tragedy is very un-funny. I consider it a light-hearted thread, and no need to get too heavy. Perhaps it's not too far-fetched to say that all persecuted lesbi-gay/transgender people deserve a place of refuge.

you couldn't give the gays a country. everyone would go to war with them. and in case of a war they would be too busy makin' out to fight! well unless you instituted a dont ask dont tell policy.

OH! wait you sneaky devil! you already have a country.

does transylvania ring a bell??????? hmmm? tim curry could show you the way.

*hoping you get the reference*


in all seriousness...that would probably be a bad idea. depending on where it was, it would probably be under constant siege and america probably wouldnt help out. maybe europe would...but i somehow dont see that.


but on the plus side, for the 5 minutes it existed it would be FABULOUS!!!!

I'm no homophobe, and my wife and I have several "gay" friends whom we don't judge, even though my wife and I are church-going theists. What I object to is any effort to turn a "lifestyle preference" into a political agenda.

I don't trust anybody with a political agenda. What's funny is that our gay friends are in total agreement with me on that point.

Invariably, political agendas divide people, communities, nations. I have yet to see a political agenda that wasn't entirely self-serving and that actually brought people together. It hasn't been done in the history of humanity.

Splitting off from society and creating a separate nation isn't the answer.

From a religious perspective, I often quote the old Sufi saying: "A devil takes one and makes two; a saint takes two and makes one." Meaning, of course, that division and separatism are destructive and evil, while unity and communal spirit are godly. Division makes us weaker, Unity strengthens us.

The hardest challenge for humanity is building Unity, which is precisely why we must pursue Unity at all costs — because it is so difficult. The most difficult fight is the only one worth fighting.

Division and divisiveness are for cowards seeking the easiest way out, and that applies to politicians and race-baiters and those who divide the Church, as well, creating myriad churches, pursuing myriad political agendas.

— Doc Velocity

yeah i agree with halfoldman; there will be some sort of terrorism because they're relgions CANT have homosexual people or lesbian's.


thanks for the reply

[Morbo]COUNTRIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY![/Morbo]

Seriously? A country where by definition, population growth is by immigration only?

Definitely NO. the only places we could place such a country would be in one of the U.S. colonies- I mean commonwealths and bring all the original residents of the island/territory to the U.S. the problem that would arise would be that they would need a form of government and some way to protect themselves from invaders. If they will create their own currency or if they will simply be an american puppet nation. They would also have to get recognition from the international system. the U.S. would have to constantly watch them for at least 50 years to protect them from countries that might be hostile toward a homosexual State.

the biggest problem of all, of course, would be that doing something like this would be considered discriminatory (sending people with different sexual orientation to some far-off territory? sounds like forced banishment from the U.S. and could probably be compared to placing them in an outdoor concentration camp).

Imagine how much crap the U.S. would have to eat from the international system and the U.N. for doing such a discriminatory move; as well as adding one more bit of embarrassing U.S. history to our already lengthy not-so-good historical record!

Interesting idea. What about forming a country for heterosexuals only? Would you support the formation of a sovereign state where only heterosexuals were allowed to live?

Imagine that. The world divided into separate Island states that only allowed people with a certain trait to live. White only Islands. Black Only Islands. Heterosexual only Islands. Homosexual only Islands. Christian only Islands. Muslim only Islands. Jewish only Islands. Atheist only Islands. Satanist only Islands.

Every Island has access to the same resources and its people can prosper equally. Obviously some Islands would need to be larger in size that others, but all people would have access to enough food, water and technology as each other. Nobody would be permitted to travel from one Island to another for any reason. However, they would be allowed to maintain contact and communication with family and friends that are on different Islands.

No more arguments about sexuality. No more arguments about racism. No more arguments about religion. No more inequality and injustice. Well at least a lot less than there exists now in our current world.

A dream world indeed.

[edit on 4/11/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by halfoldman
Well aren't theists break-aways from another church, and those churches splits from others until you get a Catholic Church with a Vatican state?

That's what I said earlier. Theism is belief in God (or gods), as opposed to atheism. The Catholic Church is one of the oldest religious institutions on Earth... All other Christian churches are offshoots of Catholicism. The Lutheran Church, for example, was founded as a REFORMED version of the Catholic Church, one that rejects the abuses of power within the traditional Catholic Church.

As Lutherans, our national church just voted to allow gay pastors, which is currently splitting the Lutheran church from within. It's a big deal.

My position is that splitting the church, or splitting the community, or splitting the nation, is the devil's work. Division is evil and weakens us. We have to pursue unity, welcome gays and everybody else into the church, let them come in and decide for themselves what value the church has to offer them.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 11/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by halfoldman
OK. My point is: if it wasn't for splits (what you term devil's work) your church wouldn't exist (you'd still be "Jewish", like the apostles). Your church is the result of devil's work (splits) in that case. The opposite of "devil's work" is thus by your logic "unification", or "re-unification". So let's unify all gay people around a state.

Well, yes, division is the devil's work. But the emergence of Christianity was based on one group of Jews accepting Jesus as the promised messiah. What we call Judaism today is the branch that doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah. So these are actually 2 distinctly different religions, not mere offshoots.

My church exists because of Jesus Christ's work, not the devil's.

But you're trying to change the subject. The fact is that most gays just want the freedom to get along in society without having to discuss homosexuality or heterosexuality every time they turn around. Face it, there's not that much homophobia in Western Civilization anymore. We have adapted pretty quickly.

However, there are those in the "gay community" who want (need) to keep homophobia alive in order to justify their own radical political agendas. Same thing with those who are keeping racism alive in the West — racism is basically dead in the West, but minority activists have to keep shouting RACISM! to justify their existence.

My point is, creating a new Gay Nation is running away from the larger problem, rather than addressing and resolving it.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 11/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

No. The "sin of Sodom" was inhospitality, not homosexuality.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by halfoldman
OK. My point is: if it wasn't for splits (what you term devil's work) your church wouldn't exist (you'd still be "Jewish", like the apostles). Your church is the result of devil's work (splits) in that case. The opposite of "devil's work" is thus by your logic "unification", or "re-unification". So let's unify all gay people around a state.

Well, yes, division is the devil's work. But the emergence of Christianity was based on one group of Jews accepting Jesus as the promised messiah. What we call Judaism today is the branch that doesn't accept Jesus as the messiah. So these are actually 2 distinctly different religions, not mere offshoots.

My church exists because of Jesus Christ's work, not the devil's.

But you're trying to change the subject. The fact is that most gays just want the freedom to get along in society without having to discuss homosexuality or heterosexuality every time they turn around. Face it, there's not that much homophobia in Western Civilization anymore. We have adapted pretty quickly.

However, there are those in the "gay community" who want (need) to keep homophobia alive in order to justify their own radical political agendas. Same thing with those who are keeping racism alive in the West — racism is basically dead in the West, but minority activists have to keep shouting RACISM! to justify their existence.

My point is, creating a new Gay Nation is running away from the larger problem, rather than addressing and resolving it.

— Doc Velocity

Well, then go back to the Catholic church (the only surviving original Western church) and stop splitting!
I'm no Jewish scholar, but to say that an older form of a religion relies on a later reformed off-shoot to define itself is illogical. Your tradition has spilt from them, just as Luther eventualy split from Catholicism.
The idea you now introduced (in antithesis to your earlier "gay friendly" none-judgement) is just as ridiculous. To see the blatant, even admissions of violence (knocking out teeth) dislike of gays see the post by andy 1033 "Why would the idea of a gay man frighten other males so much?". It's not all anti-gay, but the hatred becomes especially blatant in the last five or six pages. Sure, getting assaulted is a figment of our imagination. Do you ever read on the global situation of gay people, or do you assume your home-town is the only situation? Have you read how many men suspected of homosexuality have been murdered in Iraq this year?
Do you know that most democracies and republics exist today because they split (sometimes violently, like the USA) from Britain? How wicked of them.
Racism in the West must be controlled by law, or the sentiment evident all across the web would spill out into violent xenophobia.



[edit on 11/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by chiron613
No. The "sin of Sodom" was inhospitality, not homosexuality.

Yes well, maybe. The terminology is about getting the debate started. It actually comes from an anarchy grafitti movement in the 1970s. I think it encapsulates the homophobic thinking behind the marginalization and abuse of gay people, although different names (suggestions?) would be more appropriate. Of coure the rationale is not limited to belief/dis-belief in one mythological narrative (which in this case ends in the incest between Lot and his daughters - Genesis 19).