help me with my project: what if gay were the norm and heterosexuality were taboo?

[CrustyOatmeal]

in my social science class me and my group have decided to take a look at how the world would have changed if heterosexuality were taboo and being gay were the norm. seeing as how it is impossible to analyses this entire topic within a single semester, our group is concentrating on how America would change (with and emphasis on California since that is where we go to school).

the project is going along pretty well thus far but i have hit a snag. i am trying to dig up historical people that were drastically effected by their sexuality to such a degree that if this "gay being the norm" thing occurred it would have altered history. I'm basically looking for the Americans (men or women) who were know for being extremely sexual. my idea is, if say Washington was known as being a Casanova, then in this alternate reality he would still be straight but he would try and hide it; how would this change in character effected him? would he be too shy to attempt to be an American president?

here is our groups actual prompt. feel free to discuss your interpretations and ideas, i would love to hear your responses

what if the world started off with men only loving men and women only loving women (i know the biology would be hard to explain but just roll with me on this). how would the world be different. would the emergence of heterosexuality be more or less accepted? how would culture/ music/ art be different? would their be a great divide between lesbians and gays (either by city or by nation)? would wars like WWII be fought over completely different reasons (gay or lesbian superiority)? how would metro-sexuality change? would transgender people be accepted?

EDIT: please try and avoid stereotypes like saying the world would be more flamboyant and covered in glitter; that is an element of current gay culture but in this alternate reality it could just as easily be apart of heterosexual culture

EDIT#2: ok, so i have heard some people saying they are insulted so i am adding this to hopefully straighten up this topic. i am not saying that being gay effect your choices, what i am trying to do is view how history can be changed through minor events. in this prompt i am viewing gay as a sliding scale (yes i understand it does not work this way but i am adding this alteration to highlight changes in history that may have occurred if the historical people we know today were oppress the way gays were in that time- would Washington have made different choices in life if he were worried about being killed because of his sexuality). through this sliding scale, very heterosexual individuals (those known for their sexual exploits as well as their historical significance- IE Clinton) would only be moderately heterosexual but they would be living in a world where that would be taboo. how would this change in character change history?

 

[JesterRaiin]

Last part of this masterpiece :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War
...takes place in such "setting".

His vision is plausible enough to agree with it 100% i guess.

 

[A3sir]

1. Everything would be FABULOUS!
2. No kids, human race is dead with first generation.
3. Have a look into Greek history, bisexuality was the norm then, so it might be of help.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

-'if gay were the norm and heterosexuality were taboo'-

The population would be much much smaller.

If the world started out that way, it would have lasted maybe 2 generations.

i said to ignore the biological factor. read the post next time

 

[Suijen]

Will multiplayer games be filled with 12 year old boys screaming such colorful vocabulary like "that's fucking straight" and "you ruler!" and then proceed to go missionary on corpses?

 

[BanicRhys]

Well if we have to ignore the only real repercussion of this scenario...

As I see it, the only difference would be that now straight people are throwing their sexuality in your face at every given opportunity instead. (I'll just mention that I say this in jest because I know some of the people on this site are rather Serious Sallys.)
And I guess men and women would either interact with each other a lot more or a lot less freely.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

Will multiplayer games be filled with 12 year old boys screaming such colorful vocabulary like "that's fucking straight" and "you ruler!" and then proceed to go missionary on corpses?

i actually have a gay guy in our group and his entire job for this week consists of comming up with heterosexual slurs that may have been developed through hisory

 

[Thaliur]

I'm sorry, but exactly this kind of topic is the main reason why I will never be able to take social "science" seriously.

As Sober Thal pointed out, humanity would die out in that case. I know you told us not to question the biology behind it, but that sentence doesn't solve the problem, it's called ignoring.

Also, if the scenario would work out - however strange the biology of these hypothetical people must be - we would likely have exactly the same problems we had so far, only with the roles of heterosexuals and homosexuals switched. Thought experiment solved.

As for Washington: If he was a casanova, in a world where being homosexual is normal, he would most likely be gay.

Heterosexuals would most likely be gaining rights by now, because they have Goerge Takei on their side.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm sorry, but exactly this kind of topic is the main reason why I will never be able to take social "science" seriously.

As Sober Thal pointed out, humanity would die out in that case. I know you told us not to question the biology behind it, but that sentence doesn't solve the problem, it's called ignoring.

Also, if the scenario would work out - however strange the biology of these hypothetical people must be - we would likely have exactly the same problems we had so far, only with the roles of heterosexuals and homosexuals switched. Thought experiment solved.

As for Washington: If he was a casanova, in a world where being homosexual is normal, he would most likely be gay.

Heterosexuals would most likely be gaining rights by now, because they have Goerge Takei on their side.

Speaking as someone who is almost finished with a degree in social science, it really annoys even me. It's not a science. It's an art which pretends to use the scientific method, but doesn't quite seem to comprehend how it works.

 

[Tanakh]

As I see it, the only difference would be that now straight people are throwing their sexuality in your face at every given opportunity instead.

Good god, that would be awful. Nice it doesn't happen today.

OT: Sadly can't help, don't know the gay USA history. But as far as i have experience my gay friends are just regular joes that like guys, some like jewel rings or some gay stuff but not more than what some other straight guys like watches, the amount of divas seem as much as the amount of macho straights.

I would play it cool and show that sexual differences are just that, changes on what you want to have sex with.

 

[Tanakh]

Speaking as someone who is almost finished with a degree in social science, it really annoys even me. It's not a science. It's an art which pretends to use the scientific method, but doesn't quite seem to comprehend how it works.

Really? Why art? It is at least much more scientific that math for what is worth, and good social science tries to be as rigorous as physics, with the downside of having less experimentation methods.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

I'm sorry, but exactly this kind of topic is the main reason why I will never be able to take social "science" seriously.

As Sober Thal pointed out, humanity would die out in that case. I know you told us not to question the biology behind it, but that sentence doesn't solve the problem, it's called ignoring.

Also, if the scenario would work out - however strange the biology of these hypothetical people must be - we would likely have exactly the same problems we had so far, only with the roles of heterosexuals and homosexuals switched. Thought experiment solved.

As for Washington: If he was a casanova, in a world where being homosexual is normal, he would most likely be gay.

Heterosexuals would most likely be gaining rights by now, because they have Goerge Takei on their side.

you miss the point of this experiment. the idea is to step out of one's bubble and flip the roles so that you can hopefully observe what it is like to be in their shoes and to understand the stupidity of it all

as for you comment about my Washington example. i am mearly trying to use famous historical people as way of showing how history could drastically change if one little alteration would occur. in this experiment i am viewing sexuality on a sliding scale so that those who were extremely heterosexual in nature would only be slightly heterosexual in nature but since they would still be hetero the world would not accept them and they would change. if your having trouble understanding this just imagine it as a karma system from games like fable and fallout: most people have +25 hetero and super hetero people have +75 hetero. in an alternate reality everybody gains +50 gay and so the hetero people are now +25 gay and the super heteros are now +25 hetero, they are still hetero but no longer super hetero

 

[Tanakh]

This is possibly the most insulting thread I have ever seen against the gay community.

Yeap. Well, not the most insulting, i mean he doesn't say that gays are like Hitler, but it's as clueless insulting as it gets.

Then again, nothing big, i remember once i went to a gay party of a friend, all the guys were asking like "what is to be straight" - "dude, the same as you but i like boobs".

Offtopic: Anyone know how to embed an image? i assumed (brackets)image=Http://whatever.jpg(brackets) but i am failing at post http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mAuj7ehQBmw/TU9gPLu9OGI/AAAAAAAAB4o/SfmPb0yM3oE/s1600/Hugh-Hefner-Playboy-girls.jpg

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Speaking as someone who is almost finished with a degree in social science, it really annoys even me. It's not a science. It's an art which pretends to use the scientific method, but doesn't quite seem to comprehend how it works.

Really? Why art? It is at least much more scientific that math for what is worth, and good social science tries to be as rigorous as physics, with the downside of having less experimentation methods.

Art in the archaic sense, as in "a human endeavor that is not a science," not so much art in the sense that anyone who partakes in it is an artist or an art critic. There's just too much fudge factor involved for it to truly be a science; you know, like the old saying "it's more art than science." Bascially, cooking is an art; baking is a science. If you try to turn baking into an art or cooking into a science, the end result is not particularly good. (In the case of baking, I'm referring specifically to actually making the pastry/bread. There is very little room for going off-recipe, and experiments pretty much have to be carried out by changing one variable at a time. Decorating a cake, obviously, isn't what I'm talking about here.)

 

[Palademon]

Well, we'd all be dead, a long time ago, since only a tiny portion of the population would be reproducing.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

Actually, after thinking about it for a few minutes...

This is possibly the most insulting thread I have ever seen against the gay community.

You sound like you mean to propose that gay people are not like the 'other humans who have inhabited the world for all it's existence'.

You seem to imply that being gay can make all of your other choices in life different, and that's kinda wrong, eh?

Yeah, I'm gunna stick to my first post. It would nothing changes, unless you buy into stereotypes.

you are looking at this topic the wrong way. what i am trying to say is what if historically significant people were oppressed because of their sexuality, how would the world be different. its the same argument as "what if their were a guy kid who was the next Einstein but he never reached his potential because he lived in a world that hated him for being gay". the reason i am posing this reversal of roles is because this is the only way we can possibly observe how history would be different. we cannot look at how history would have been different if gays were always accepted in society but we can observe how it would be different if historical people were oppressed the way gays were then

i understand this topic is weird and it may have been poorly worded but im trying to adjust peoples understanding of the topic as it evolves

 

[Johann610]

The same struggles over land, bread, and economic systems would probably produce similar wars, but the armies would be different. In Greek history, homo-sexual tension in small units produced greater "unit cohesion" which added to morale. If this were writ large, a much more "defensive" posture would be created, making wars longer, or at least, less bloody.
It is harder, after all, to order "brothers" to their death.