AH Challenge: Homosexual Republic of Discoland.

Even IF this hypothetical gay country existed, its survival would depend entirely on immigration, because even "turkey baster" babies and adopted kids won't necessarily turn out gay. I for one lean toward the biological side of the nature/nurture issue.
 
However, in such a country bisexuality would obviously be more than socially acceptable, even for otherwise "straight" people.

But yes -- it's unlikely that the country could sustain itself de facto as a majority gay country.
 
However, in such a country bisexuality would obviously be more than socially acceptable, even for otherwise "straight" people.

But yes -- it's unlikely that the country could sustain itself de facto as a majority gay country.

Playing devil's advocate - and potentially igniting yet another pointless flame war so I apologise up front - although I don't accept the argument of nurture over nurture, I don't see a clear cut case that nurture is absolutely not fundamental to determining a person's sexual orientation. If a child grows up in an exclusively gay environment then theoretically (at least marginally theoretically) the child has the potential to be gay. There have been zero studies on raising children in exclusively gay environments - the nearest we can get are studies on Israeli Kibbutzim where certain Kibbutz had particular ideologies and the children were raised in said ideologies. That is, I freely admit, a long way from what I was describing.

Bisexuality could indeed become way, way more the norm - after it's "easier" for many people to self-identify this way as there's no criteria to narrow down and focus the 'level of bisexuality' (for want of a better phrase). Thinking of the Kinsey Scale, what we think of as bisexuality would cover rankings 1-5 - only 0 and 6 are exclusively heterosexual or gay. If the situation described above came to fruition, then what we might describe as heterosexual could easily be a 1 or 2 ranking on the Kinsey Scale.
 

Mujahid786

Banned
Playing devil's advocate - and potentially igniting yet another pointless flame war so I apologise up front - although I don't accept the argument of nurture over nurture, I don't see a clear cut case that nurture is absolutely not fundamental to determining a person's sexual orientation. If a child grows up in an exclusively gay environment then theoretically (at least marginally theoretically) the child has the potential to be gay. There have been zero studies on raising children in exclusively gay environments - the nearest we can get are studies on Israeli Kibbutzim where certain Kibbutz had particular ideologies and the children were raised in said ideologies. That is, I freely admit, a long way from what I was describing.

Bisexuality could indeed become way, way more the norm - after it's "easier" for many people to self-identify this way as there's no criteria to narrow down and focus the 'level of bisexuality' (for want of a better phrase). Thinking of the Kinsey Scale, what we think of as bisexuality would cover rankings 1-5 - only 0 and 6 are exclusively heterosexual or gay. If the situation described above came to fruition, then what we might describe as heterosexual could easily be a 1 or 2 ranking on the Kinsey Scale.

It does have effects. Kids turn out the way their parents raise them. If they are raised strictly, they will be good and straightforward. If there is little discipline, they will run wild.
 
Where exactly would this 'Discoland' (can't we think of a better name?) be located, and how would it come into being? I hope it doesn't end up as some wierd Jonesesque kind of cult in an isolated commune.
 

Mujahid786

Banned
Where exactly would this 'Discoland' (can't we think of a better name?) be located, and how would it come into being? I hope it doesn't end up as some wierd Jonesesque kind of cult in an isolated commune.

that is up to you. make a PoD
 
"The United States of Discoland." Why hasn't anyone pounced on this as being the most despicable form of stereo-typing??!!?? I am proud to be queer, myself, but that doesn't mean I'm some nelly queen who wants to move to some Pacific isle where the national anthem is "I Will Survive!" The whole point of being openly gay is to show that we're just people, like everyone else, without the need to ghetto-ise ourselves.

Besides, how does this nation replace itself? Has the whole world turned so anti-gay that there's a constant immigration? Absolutely ASB. Straight people give birth to gay babies, and no matter the cultural baggage, it seems that across the board one queer is born per 20 births, give or take.

I'm a gay man who's a landscaper in New Orleans. Both my parents were Marines, and I grew up bouncing around the world. I have callouses on my hands and can drink enough to make a sailor bow out. My favourite band is Guns'n'Roses. What the Hell do I have in common with most of the "gay community," and why would I move to some "gay" country?

Straight people need to realise that there isn't any united "Gay" front. We're all just people, in all our complexity, and we can't be grouped by our orientation.
 
"The United States of Discoland." Why hasn't anyone pounced on this as being the most despicable form of stereo-typing??!!?? I am proud to be queer, myself, but that doesn't mean I'm some nelly queen who wants to move to some Pacific isle where the national anthem is "I Will Survive!" The whole point of being openly gay is to show that we're just people, like everyone else, without the need to ghetto-ise ourselves.

Besides, how does this nation replace itself? Has the whole world turned so anti-gay that there's a constant immigration? Absolutely ASB. Straight people give birth to gay babies, and no matter the cultural baggage, it seems that across the board one queer is born per 20 births, give or take.

I'm a gay man who's a landscaper in New Orleans. Both my parents were Marines, and I grew up bouncing around the world. I have callouses on my hands and can drink enough to make a sailor bow out. My favourite band is Guns'n'Roses. What the Hell do I have in common with most of the "gay community," and why would I move to some "gay" country?

Straight people need to realize that there isn't any united "Gay" front. We're all just people, in all our complexity, and we can't be grouped by our orientation.

OK, no one ever said all gays must go over there. To be honest, what this thread sought was kind of a 'gaysrael' where gay people go to escape persecution.

Not all Jews went to Israel. No one expected all Jews to want to go to Israel, but it was a place where they didn't feel like a persecuted minority. I'm guessing that the same impetus would exist in this hypothetical 'gaysrael'.

Anyway, my issue is that it would be impossible to develop a nation-state out of it. Even if you in-vitroed everybody in order to bear children you can't raise them to be gay. Germans give birth, they raise their children to be German. The people of this gay nation wouldn't be able to raise their children gay and would have to rely on constant gay immigration, a difficult task.
 
Much like the Birobidzhan experiment of OTL, this would, on the surface be used as propaganda for how progressive the USSR is in letting a persecuted minority have its own autonomous homeland - but, in reality, it'd just be another stretch of land in the middle of nowhere for Stalin to ship people he didn't like, (heck, for irony's sake, lets say he places this Oblast in the far south, bordering Afghanistan).

"Welcome Comrade to the Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic of Diskovija, the world's largest closet...."

ASSRD.png

ASSRD.png
 
Considering that gays and lesbians are a minority group, they could possibly emulate what other minority groups have successfully done in the past to establish their own distinctive turf where they can become the dominant authority. Some of these examples:

(1) The persecuted Mormons trekked to Utah where they culturally and, for the most part, politically control that state. From this virtually unchallenged and secure base, they have successfully intervened in California politics in funding the Proposition 8 campaign.

(2) Freed slaves from America founded a homeland of their own in Liberia, currently the oldest independent nation in Africa.

(3) Jim Jones and his Temple followers founded Jonestown in Guyana where they attempted to build a cooperative progressive settlement.

(1), (2) and (3) involved distant, unknown or virtually unsettled areas that either other countries or people were not claiming or, in the case of (3) negotiating and obtaining special rights for the Jonestown settlement.

(4) After World War II and the Holocaust, the state of Israel was founded as a safe haven for Jews from anywhere in the world where they could be full citizens in a country that was truly their own. They literally made this desert bloom by establishing a booming, successful, modern society.

There are probably other examples (the Boer republics in South Africa, Northern Ireland, Vatican City, Singapore, Quebec, all come to mind) as well.

In the United States, gays and lesbians have become known for, among other things, “gentrification”(AKA “making the desert bloom”) whereby they have revived and renovated decaying neighborhoods.

Since there are many “failed nation-states” around the world, gays and lesbians could possibly strike a deal with one of them to provide monetary assistance, other types of improvements in return for full guaranteed equal rights, including marriage and large-scale immigration of gays and lesbians within a “gay state”.

One possibility in this category would be Haiti. Physically a tropical paradise, centrally located in the Caribbean, a perfect location and climate for tourism, Haiti is nevertheless an economic basket case facing multiple problems with political unrest, poverty, disease, environmental disasters and hurricanes. Gay money could help transform Haiti.

But for an independent gay nation, there is a practical and achievable though probably not a very probable way to accomplish this. This particular nation would have the full backing of both the United States and the United Nations: Puerto Rico. The initial impetus would have to come from gays and lesbians living in the United States. First a little background.

Puerto Ricans are U. S. citizens. Puerto Rico is currently a commonwealth associated with the United States but it retains the right to become an independent nation at anytime a majority of its citizens vote for that option. The United States would honor the will of the Puerto Ricans.

Puerto Ricans, as U.S. citizens, have the right to move to the mainland United States and become, say, a citizen of New York or Texas or Hawaii and vote in those states. The same right also exists for United States citizens who move to Puerto Rico. In the 1990s, in the case of Puerto Rican nationalist Juan Mari Bras, the U.S. Secretary of State said that after a year of residence, any U.S. citizen could gain Puerto Rican citizenship.

With wealthy gays and lesbians bankrolling a project ranging from housing to employment, gay and lesbian Americans could begin moving to Puerto Rico en masse, thereby becoming eligible to vote for Puerto Rico’s independence.

Naturally many, if not most native-born Puerto Ricans would oppose their island becoming a gay state. But during this “pre-independence” period, confidence-building on both sides could take place….. Puerto Rico could see real economic benefits from gay money and talented new gay citizens while gays could obtain complete equal rights. Puerto Rico could become a world center of culture, tolerance and prosperity while gays can feel totally secure in a country that is also theirs.

One concession, after independence, is that all Puerto Rican citizens must learn Spanish so that Puerto Rico doesn’t become or is considered a “gay colony” or a Palestinian-Israeli conflict exists. After independence is achieved, Puerto Rico’s doors, a la Israel, will be opened to gays and lesbians from all over the world to become citizens.

Needless to say, this suggestion wouldn’t be easy to achieve, but it is within the realm of possibility. Puerto Rico would also be a even more crowded island than it is now but other places, such as Singapore and the Netherlands, have coped.
 
Top