How would you feel if there’s a LGBT-only city in your country?

Not really, and isn’t that discrimination from the other side?

In CA. here there basically already is. San Francisco has been a LGBT mecca for decades and decades, a very progressive city.

I’m fine if a city is made up of mostly gay people, but not if there is a law. That doesn’t work anyway. Are the people not going to have any kids?

Even active adult communities in FL allow 20% of the community to be under 55. Although, you could argue they discriminate too.

What a queer concept.

I can’t imagine any segment of human society voluntarily or involuntarily confining themselves to interaction with only like individuals.

Impossible.
Unknowable.
Shades of discrimination.

Exactly what would be the sense in that? There are numerous straight supporters of LGBT rights. Why would they want to alienate them needlessly with reverse discrimination.

There are “gayborhoods” in most major cities already with plenty of straight people residing there as well because they like it there (presumably most of the homophobes moved out when the area began changing).

You might have difficulty imagining why straight people would purposely want to live surrounded by LGBT folks, but I assure you there are PLENTY for various reasons, not the least of which is the diversity and culture they bring.

They would be quite hurt if an LGBT place was established which prohibited straight people.

The LGBT community does not need to isolate themselves more from society. They just need realistic protection from those homophobes seeking to do them harm. Getting rid of their straight allies amongst them would be also getting rid of an extra layer of protection.

I see no benefit to anyone, gay or straight, from the scenario you propose.

I think it would be a huge step backward. The object is to learn to live together, not apart. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that segregation and isolation promotes misunderstanding and furthers ignorance and bigotry of other cultures. It would only be a matter of time before mistrust and misunderstanding would cause the majority culture to, under the right politician (read Trump, or Falwell), attack and destroy the “other ones.”

@Coloma

But the key difference is that while SF has a huge LGBT population, there is no law barring anyone else from living there (as in the scenario proposed by the OP)

@SQUEEKY2 There’s no intention to provoke discrimination, but rather, we could say that it’s a paradise for LGBT people where they could escape to and free from discrimimation (especially if your country is extremely homophobic)

@JLeslie We can assume that the city has advanved genetic industries where preserved cells and artificial insemination can be choosen. Anyone who have been abandoned by their family could easily populate this city, too

@Buttonstc I’m saying this as an option for LGBT people. Of course, there are many LGBT residencies in many part of the world but just as there are LGBT-intolerant places in the world I think it would be a great option to provide a special optional city for LGBT people.

@Buttonstc I skirted that point, yes, I agree, a voluntary community vs. segregated law.

@Unofficial_Member I have no idea what you are talking about.

The notion is silly and would be as a practical matter unenforceable. There are bound to be straight couples sprinkled in this paradise and “living in the closet”. Besides, how exactly do you go about “officially documenting and defining” the residents. The whole concept is offensive and almost certainly illegal.

You really are missing the point..

You’re saying that an area that outlaws straight people living there would be a “paradise” for gay people.

For many gay people, the gayborhoods in which they live already are a paradise where they can be themselves and walk down the street holding hands if they want to. It isn’t necessary to ban ALL straight people.

All it takes is keeping out the haters or preventing their hatred either verbally or physically. And the straight people currently living there are an enormous help in doing so.

Why on earth would you want to eliminate the straight allies of gay folks by outlawing them. That makes no sense at all.

Have you ever lived in a predominantly gay neighborhood? I have and If you had, you would be aware of how harmonius the area can be without any need for further segregation.

As a matter of fact, that is the impetus for many gay young people from isolated rural areas to move to a big city. They know they will be comfortable in a gay neighborhood. But it’s not a place devoid of straight people. It’s just (usually) devoid of the haters and homophobes.

@JLeslie I mean suppose that the city has sperm bank that also store egg cells. There are also hospitals that cater member of opposite gender who want to have kids to get in to mutually-beneficial reproduction programs, where they use their own cells to create embryo through mechanical means (no sex) and consensual surrogacy.

I’m straight but I would love to visit a place like that! Just imagine the style and decor! The streets would be immaculate, walls and building beautifully covered in works of art.
Please send me an invite. I can be your first official tourist.

@stanleybmanly Obviously, at the border perimeter of the city there would be a mandatory check up for everyone who intend to get in and out of the city. Documentation can be prepared in each department of citizenship in your area. Think of it as border-crossing between each state where permission must be obtained from legal department of the state.

@Buttonstc I get the idea, but like I said, this is optional, meaning that whoever feel safe to live among themselves (LGBT) can opt to live there.

Moreover, eliminating haters and trying to change their mind is a seemingly endless effort as there will always be homophobes, not to count that outside the ‘gayborhood’ lies unknown peril for member of the LGBT while there’s no guarantee of protection, whereas if they opt to live in their own exclusive city there would be eternal safetiness where ever they go.

And how does one prove that he or she is gay?

@stanleybmanly Will it change your opinion whether or not there’s effective solution to this issue?

Suppose there’s a way to do that. But if you want a detail let just say that the applicants for residency are required to sign ‘statement of approval’ and if they’re proven inconsistent with their claims later in the city then they’ll be expelled from the city, humanely, of course.

@Buttonstc No. That is not what I am saying at all. I was simply agreeing that there should be no illegalities nor segregation in any community, That was a stretch, attaching me promoting a hetero ban in gay communities as resulting in a “gay paradise”
Clever twist but no. haha

@Unofficial Member Ok. Let’s assume such a community is established and now up and running. People have a right to wall themselves off. That’s what your house, church or private club are about. Now the problem arises with the incorporation of a private town built on restrictive covenants based on gender. There are just too many landmines to trip over. Say there’s an opening in the fire dept., and a straight man from a neigboring suburb applies for the job?

Actually, @Unofficial_Member there are places like this already. They are called Intentional Communities. These are places where like minded people have incorporated and purchased land under the corporation—just like towns do— then live their lifestyles apart from the communities around them. Some are LGBT, some are certain sects of Christianity, some are simply agrarian-egalitarian, some are Wiccan and some are exclusively Lesbian. There are all kinds.

They either develop their own industries to support the community or work off-site within the communities around them. There are no cities of this kind yet. Most of these outfits are small, maybe 100 people at best. Some are rural, some are urban. Some are simply a house in a city where six like-minded people live and have a website in order to blog and recruit.

But what you’re talking about is a city. Since it would be impossible to buy an existing city and displace the present inhabitants without major problems, you will have to subscribe among your like minded cohorts and build one. Alternatively, you can start small. There are over 6,000 abandoned towns in Kansas within counties that one could presume would love to have a paying tax base once again. Apparently, there are places like this all over the Midwest. Here you have expensive infrastructure such as streets, sewers and an electric grid just lying there doing nothing. Done properly, one of these towns, if successful, could grow into a city just like you describe.

As to industries, there is a section of the mid-sized Florida city that I come from that has resort hotels exclusively for members of the LGBT community. It’s first class and they do a booming busness. Soon, more resorts of the same opened nearby. People came in from all over North America and Europe to stay there. They do a lot of conventions. They can’t legally exclude heterosexuals, but not many stay there. It isn’t an issue. The immediate neighborhood is pretty and is a recognized LGBT community now with good real estate value.

It might be worthwhile to consider buying one of the abandoned towns in the midwest and making it a mecca LGBT resort in order to seed your idea. Essentially, that’s how the mafia started Vegas. This is looking like it could be possible.

Sounds like a lot of dedication and work, though. And you’ll need investors. But it’s possible. Are you up to it?

The only reason that would ever happen, would be if western society reverted back to extreme oppression. Causing the need for a safe haven area for LGBT.

I don’t see it happening in this life time and I don’t see what it would accomplish. We need less segregation in the world not more.

@Unofficial_Member Making the babies is not my worry. My point was the kids might be straight.

It seems like many people focus more on the practicality and impact of this type of city (not that it’s wrong) in my question. Only one person so far can see that this question is not about agreement on whether or not this city should be built, but rather, how you judge this type of city (that, hypothetically, somehow, has already existed in your country).

I must say I agree for the implication of promoting discrimination for this type of establishment, and so on, but if we look at the other way, where you live in a country that is heavily religious, homophobic, and don’t want to have anything to do with LGBT but is kind enough to have built an exclusive settlement for LGBT for respect of humanity, it’s a wise idea to avoid further conflict and casualities by the establishment of this type of city.

@stanleybmanly There are no barriers between each district in this type of city. The districts are differentiated by sexual-orientation simply because the majority of one type of sexual orientation has been colonizing that particular place from the beginning, there’s no restriction between people of each district in this city, and absolutely no gender restriction within the LGBT community. Lastly, this city is self-supplying their workforce so any labor needed would be taken from within the city

@Espiritus_Corvus Alright, assume in this question that the city has, somehow, already been established by the government (now don’t you say your government won’t ever do it. Just assume!).

@NerdyKeith Really? Is that mean you support this type of city since, oppression, after all, still happening in some countries where being part of LGBT alone is criminalized?

@JLeslie That would be a special condition. Babies will be raised until legal age and straight young adults will be transferred to other cities, they’ll also be provided with adequate fund, of course, as part of the regulation.

Lol. In the 55+ communities they don’t let you in or stay if you have children under 18, but your grandkids can visit.

@Unofficial_Member You’ve given this way too much thought. Is there some reason for that?
I mean, are you suggesting a safe haven, or extreme segregation?
How would you feel if there was a LBGT only city in your country?

@ibstubro lol No, it’s the contrary. My sole intention was to listen to how people project their imagination if they’re brought inside LGBT-only city, how they judge the citizen of the city, the environment, etc but most of you seem to prefer the section of how farfetch the idea for implementation (not that I against discussing that), otherwise I would’ve posted this in general section. You may want to see @LuckyGuy‘s example if you’re still confused

I would be, of course, happy if people in my country have the option to live exclusively inside their own community. There’s a shaming culture for LGBT here so I think it will allow LGBT people happiness if straight people mind their own business and LGBT people can mind theirs, undisturbed, in their own, safely-protected, environment.

@Unofficial_Member Where do you live? Here in America we do have cities and sections of cities that have high percentages if gay people or gay acceptance. Now, being gay is more accepted in general, but back in the day when a lot of gay people felt they had to stay hidden, we still had some cities where they could feel comfortable.

While I appreciate @LuckyGuy‘s idyllic view of a LGBT city, @Unofficial_Member it should be noted that the LGBT community is as diverse as the straight community and subject to the same demons and delights.

It’s unrealistic to imagine that drug and alcohol abuse wouldn’t cause crime and poverty. Equally unimaginable that the LGBT community would turn troubled members away, much less remove them if there was a fall from grace.

Yes, Walt Whitman was gay, but so was Jeffrey Dahmer.

It depends.

I’m a panromantic demisexual who has never been in a non-hetero, non-cis relationship (just how the chips fell).

Am I allowed to live there? Is my straight, cis husband? Is my child?

Now I get it. You’re from a totally different political environment. Sounds to me like you want a sanctuary city. Yeah, I’m all for that under those circumstances. I’d even be willing to postpone negotiating our disagreement about exclusivity in order to provide immediate sanctuary. But from the little I’m able to piece together from you, if I were to say that in your country, I would become one of the persecuted as well and my support wouldn’t be of much help.

What’s your situation?

I would think somebody should step in and promote more diversity

“There’s a shaming culture for LGBT here so I think it will allow LGBT people happiness if straight people mind their own business and LGBT people can mind theirs, undisturbed, in their own, safely-protected, environment.”

I kind of doubt that this would “allow them happiness”. The ideal is that everyone should be able to live together harmoniously, without discrimination. I’m sure it’s hard/impossible to find whole cities where no discrimination occurs, but there are many places in the world where LGBT people can live without discrimination impinging greatly on their happiness over a lifetime.

I can’t imagine any of my gay friends preferring to live in a LGBT-only community. In fact, I’m pretty sure they would all be horrified by the idea of effectively being segregated.

Sounds pretty backwards. “Separate but equal” hasn’t worked out great in the past.

I didn’t know most of the situation in your respective country so I assume from the majority of the comment that most of you live in LGBT-friendly country where a need for different/better, albeit optional settlement for LGBT people is not exist.

I agree in this case that if there’s no major issue living alongside straight community then an exclusive city may not necessary, but I still fancy the idea since it’s optional and there hasn’t been a consensus on whether LGBT people would prefer to live among themselves or not.

@Seek Suppose there’s a special court to settle your issue. As for your husband, he can only visit, while your child can move in with you until he/she reaches legal age. Alright, I really need to remind myself to stop go into details for this imagine-the-protocols-of-LGBT-city.

@Espiritus_Corvus I’m glad that you have the willingness to see this issue from different angle. I’m in a situation, that, depending on where you live and go will have different level of consequences if you’re discovered as part of the LGBT community.

LGBT people will always have the need to hide from society, oftentimes stay in the closet forever and become unfulfilled because of their inability to fully express themselves in this type of society. If an exclusive place has been provided them then certaily they would have better life, away from people who are intolerant and may harm them.

Now that you’ve explained your personal living situation more fully, I can see where you’re coming from. Many of us on Fluther live in the USA where there already are significant numbers of gay-friendly parts of cities so don’t see a need of an entire city for this purpose.

But your viewpoint also seems to be as much about physical safety and freedom from daily persecution and I’m sorry that’s what your country is like.

When you write that “LGBT people will always have the need to hide from society, oftentimes stay in the closet forever and become unfulfilled…” my heart is sad for you that you have to live in a country like that.

It also gives me new appreciation for countries like ours, Canada, Ireland and numerous other more progressive countries where LGBT people are by and large free to be themselves (and recently even get legally married).

When I asked you if you’ve ever lived in an LGBT friendly neighborhood of a major city, I now see that you’ve never been given this opportunity in your country. So, your need for a sanctuary is obvious.

If you ever have the opportunity to visit (or perhaps live) in a more progressive country, I think you’d be pleasantly surprised by how ordinary it is for LGBT people to live happy and fulfilled lives and having numerous genuine straight friends who are supportive of them.

But places like Russia, many middle Eastern countries, etc can be downright dangerous places to live in if one is LGBT as well as being unable to be themselves.

I really hope you find your place of refuge. But you’ll likely need to leave your country to do so.

I do not want to live anywhere my family is not welcome.

@Unofficial_Member If you are in a country such as Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or others where you would receive the death penalty or be otherwise persecuted for being a member to the LGBT community, I can certainly understand your sentiments. However, if you are in Europe, North America or any of the other countries that are, albeit slowly, liberalizing their views and laws in an attempt to accept integration of minority lifestyles, my first answer above stands. What you suggest would be a huge step backward and not beneficial in any way to minority communities. The object is to learn to live together, not apart. We have learned that lesson the hard way many times. We don’t need to keep re-learning it.

Humans worldwide are attempting to rid themselves of taboos going back as far as before written history. I cite the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Complete integration won’t happen overnight and to expect this would be the height of naivite. It is a struggle very possibly without precedent and may possibly take more than one lifetime to accomplish. The best one living at the present can hope for is to make headway toward integration, then hand the work off to the next generation before they go. I believe what you suggest is abandonment of that struggle to the detriment of the following generations. Shit like this doesn’t happen overnight. You need to keep the faith, bro.

You idea is a retreat in the face of this monumental struggle and it is an insult to the multitudes who have spent their lives sacrificing their careers, their property, and their lives and on the altar of freedom. I will not contemplate such an idea. It is a cowardly idea.

I think if I lived in a country where gay people live under the threat of being killed by the government, not just citizens, then a town made up of only gay people would be scary. Just like how in the back of my head when I am in a synagogue I think here we are, altogether, for the haters to get a bunch of us at once. Being held in a partitioned of area can become a prison. If you don’t allow straight people then will other parts of the country not allow gay people? You no longer would have “freedom” to walk amongst the many, because you will no longer have a secret you can hide. Your address will give away your sexual orientation.

Forget prison, if you wanted to destroy the entire LGBT community in one fell swoop, it would be a lot easier to poison the water supply of the segregated communities with minimal risk to the straight, cisgendered folk.

@Seek That’s the other thing. The questioner is only interested in our degree of tolerance of such a place were it to pop up. My response is that such an enclave would be fine with me until the first challenge to its exclusionary nature. The first challenger to the scheme would have my full and immediate support. So no matter how indifferent I would be to the existence of the place, the inevitable and almost immediate challenges to the scheme forces those paying attention to choose a side.

@Seek That’s what I meant by my synagogue example.