- 09 Mar 2007 10:01
#1138295
imagicnation wrote:
I do not see how existence of one additional nation-state for Gays does destroy the "fight to ensure liberty, freedom and a guarentee of basic human rights for all" which you are arguing for. Somehow you are assuming that I am against ensuring liberty, freedom and human rights for all -- this is not the case, why do you think this of me? I simply say that this approach obviously doesn't work, and that we can't rely upon your idealistic worldview.
It is also not in my intention to tell you not to improve the world in the way you are suggesting, if you actually mean to participate in some of the world-improving activities by yourselfe. You are free to act on your beliefs, who says you mustn't?
The world is being improved by many people working on many speciallized issues: some support children with cancer, some assist people with AIDS, some engage against torture, some rescue the whales - each of them have a very narrow-spot activity, and yet in their entirety all those activists effectively contribute their share to make this world a better place. Rescue lives of Gay people (who are indeed a precious minority, at least to me) is most certainly no less honorable. You should address your appeals for world improvement not to those with a particular cause, but to those without any cause - the tremendous majourity of theoretical world-improvers. Whatever you choose to do is up to you, as long as you do it.
But if you mean that I shall not bother you with reports on desperate conditions of Gays in Nigeria because you think that it is the sole responsibility of "Nigerians" to fight for freedom in their country, I must disagree. In my worldview, there are "Americans", "Germans", "Nigerians" and -- "Gays". Gays who happen to live in America are not the same as Americans who happen to be gay. It's the question of priorities.
If you are an American nationalist, it is quite natural that you oppose the idea of Gay nationalism. Why? Because it is a competing sort of nationalism to your own. You only must be honest on this issue - it's wrong to pretend you are not a nationalist when you are, but of a different coleur than me. If I am mistaken and you are GENERALLY opposed to the idea of nation-states, this is probably not the right thread. Nationalism as such is discussed ->here.
As long as the world is consisting of nation-states where each nation strives to achieve the best for their people, there is an inalienable right for every people to establish their own state, however small. Gay people are a people, too.
n the meanwhile, thousands of Gay people are being killed or commiting suicide.
Same as plenty of other minorities. That's why I have been arguing that it's not a question of saving the precious minority that is the Gay, it's a fight to ensure liberty, freedom and a guarentee of basic human rights for all.
I do not see how existence of one additional nation-state for Gays does destroy the "fight to ensure liberty, freedom and a guarentee of basic human rights for all" which you are arguing for. Somehow you are assuming that I am against ensuring liberty, freedom and human rights for all -- this is not the case, why do you think this of me? I simply say that this approach obviously doesn't work, and that we can't rely upon your idealistic worldview.
It is also not in my intention to tell you not to improve the world in the way you are suggesting, if you actually mean to participate in some of the world-improving activities by yourselfe. You are free to act on your beliefs, who says you mustn't?
The world is being improved by many people working on many speciallized issues: some support children with cancer, some assist people with AIDS, some engage against torture, some rescue the whales - each of them have a very narrow-spot activity, and yet in their entirety all those activists effectively contribute their share to make this world a better place. Rescue lives of Gay people (who are indeed a precious minority, at least to me) is most certainly no less honorable. You should address your appeals for world improvement not to those with a particular cause, but to those without any cause - the tremendous majourity of theoretical world-improvers. Whatever you choose to do is up to you, as long as you do it.
But if you mean that I shall not bother you with reports on desperate conditions of Gays in Nigeria because you think that it is the sole responsibility of "Nigerians" to fight for freedom in their country, I must disagree. In my worldview, there are "Americans", "Germans", "Nigerians" and -- "Gays". Gays who happen to live in America are not the same as Americans who happen to be gay. It's the question of priorities.
If you are an American nationalist, it is quite natural that you oppose the idea of Gay nationalism. Why? Because it is a competing sort of nationalism to your own. You only must be honest on this issue - it's wrong to pretend you are not a nationalist when you are, but of a different coleur than me. If I am mistaken and you are GENERALLY opposed to the idea of nation-states, this is probably not the right thread. Nationalism as such is discussed ->here.
As long as the world is consisting of nation-states where each nation strives to achieve the best for their people, there is an inalienable right for every people to establish their own state, however small. Gay people are a people, too.
- By Tainari88
- By MistyTiger
- By wat0n