NationStates Jolt Archive

This thought has been occuring to me back and forth over the last one-two years. So finally I have decided to share this with you all (I'm not sure if anyone has already made a thread like this =/).

So, the thing that I kept asking myself was, Would homosexuals make fun or/be rude to heterosexuals if the world was dominated by homosexuals rather than heterosexuals?

For example, from the dawn of time, all beasts/animals were homosexuals -- like God had made man for man and woman for woman (note -- I'm not a homosexual, this is just a thought). And that all those men in the nomadic tribes had intercourse with their fellow men and the women from nomadic tribes had intercourse with their fellow women. And that after intercourse, one of the men/women could get pregnant and give birth (I know it is biologically impossible, but think of it, in this scenario, as possible).

Then came the dawn of 0 AD, where religions were formed. And say that all religions (namely the ones that forbid homosexuality today) had infact stated that heterosexuality was forbidden and whoever practiced it was going to be sent to Hell, and that homosexuality is only allowed. And say that after all that, people who "dared" to be heterosexuals were lynched by religious extremists who considered homosexuality the true way and heterosexuality the Devil's way. And say that men had intercourse with men and women with women, and that this was how life would be. And say that bisexuality was also considered forbidden as you are also going towards heterosexuality.

Now say we reach 2006, and this trend is still there, like it has forever been etched in history for homosexuality to rule us Humans. Now say that teenage males would date other males, and women with other women. And say that all professors/teachers were married homesexually to the same gender as them. Now, after all this eternal trend (just like the World today, but with heterosexuality dominating), do you think the world would be a better place? Do you think homosexuals would discriminate against heterosexuals like heterosexuals generally do to homosexuals today? Do you think life would be easier since homosexuals are generally nicer and polite rather than aggressive considering their testosterone level is considerably low?

What do you all think....NO LAUGHING...this is a serious manner that would be interesting to debate on.

If you put it like that, I don't think anything would be different. If you're asking whether the simple fact of being homosexual makes someone a better character, the answer is a clear "no".

The world would be alot more fabulous, but not nessacarily better.

Then came the dawn of 0 AD, where religions were formed. And say that all religions (namely the ones that forbid homosexuality today) had infact stated that heterosexuality was forbidden and whoever practiced it was going to be sent to Hell, and that homosexuality is only allowed. And say that after all that, people who "dared" to be heterosexuals were lynched by religious extremists who considered homosexuality the true way and heterosexuality the Devil's way. And say that men had intercourse with men and women with women, and that this was how life would be. And say that bisexuality was also considered forbidden as you are also going towards heterosexuality.
There would be no Western civilization (after the fall of Rome), no Middle East, none of the big three religions, and none of the technological gadgets we have today. A civilization doesn't need t3h gh3y s3xing to survive, but if you outlaw your only method of reproducing (and then execute all heteros, which would mean killing mothers as soon as they showed) then you won't make it more than a handful of decades.
So, the world wouldn't have all the toys that were invented from Industrial Era on, and we'd all be peasants farming the dirt, thinking the Earth was flat, and possibly serving as part of a renewed Chinese Empire.

Well, the lower population would certainly have its benefits.

It would probably be much the same. Homosexuals are the same proportion of douchebags as the general population.

There would be no Western civilization (after the fall of Rome), no Middle East, none of the big three religions, and none of the technological gadgets we have today. A civilization doesn't need t3h gh3y s3xing to survive, but if you outlaw your only method of reproducing (and then execute all heteros, which would mean killing mothers as soon as they showed) then you won't make it more than a handful of decades.
So, the world wouldn't have all the toys that were invented from Industrial Era on, and we'd all be peasants farming the dirt, thinking the Earth was flat, and possibly serving as part of a renewed Chinese Empire.

You seem to think one needs heterosexuality to breed.

You seem to think one needs heterosexuality to breed.
One does need the freedom to have heterosexual sex to breed, and since we're assuming that the powers at be are as anti-straight as they were anti-gay, you probably won't have much reproductive sex going on.
Of course, Priests were supposed to be celibate, and they still managed to produce dynasties of illegitimate children.

One does need the freedom to have heterosexual sex to breed

And here I was, thinking straight sex could be replaced by a sperm receptacle and some kind of tube that would lead the sperm into a vagina. Silly me for assuming straight sex was so easily avoidable.

And here I was, thinking straight sex could be replaced by a sperm receptacle and some kind of tube that would lead the sperm into a vagina. Silly me for assuming straight sex was so easily avoidable.
Two words, Fass, Man-Date. Now, think about the silliness and over-reaction involved in that, and in the various other manifestations of western homophobia. Combine that with the numerous impracticalities that religions get off on enforcing, and tell me how turkey baster methods would develop?
Also, consider that we are talking about the people who invented the concept of "every sperm is sacred", in which each and every drop of sperm must be spent in the act of good ole heterosexual procreation. The reversal of that would be to decide that every drop of semen must be spent in a way that will, in no way, continue the species, and would make the act of being pregnant criminal.

Anyway, I would of course be supporting equal rights for those unfortunate enough to be straight, but I must say that deep down in recesses no one has ever managed to probe, the thought of straight people being treated like shit for their sexuality for once is tempting, even if only for a millisecond before my higher reasoning takes over.

Two words, Fass, Man-Date. Now, think about the silliness and over-reaction involved in that, and in the various other manifestations of western homophobia. Combine that with the numerous impracticalities that religions get off on enforcing, and tell me how turkey baster methods would develop?

Never underestimate people's need for someone to fuck. To get more gay people, you need more people. Turkey baster methods would have been abundant a week after the prohibition.

Also, consider that we are talking about the people who invented the concept of "every sperm is sacred", in which each and every drop of sperm must be spent in the act of good ole heterosexual procreation. The reversal of that would be to decide that every drop of semen must be spent in a way that will, in no way, continue the species, and would make the act of being pregnant criminal.

You're under the impression religion needs to be consistent and free of hypocrisy and double standards.

this would mean that women have similar interest to heterosexual men and that I could wear purple....were do I sign?

Never underestimate people's need for someone to fuck. To get more gay people, you need more people. Turkey baster methods would have been abundant a week after the prohibition.
Yes, but you'd still have to protect the mothers while they're preggos, which was the main problem. The only way to prove that two men/women were gaying it up is if you see them in the act. Virgin births are rare enough that most pregnant women are probably being straight, and therefore must be destroyed.
You're under the impression religion needs to be consistent and free of hypocrisy and double standards.
No, I've already mentioned the penchant that "Celibate" Popes had for impregnating chambermaids. I'm merely under the impression that religions don't introduce double standards unless the members can see an immediate pay-off.
Why bother with breaking the rules for delayed gratuity? You steal, kill, fuck, drink, smoke and accept bribes all in the present.

Yes, but you'd still have to protect the mothers while they're preggos, which was the main problem.

No, you wouldn't. They'd be carrying babies, and you know how these people feel about foetuses being more important than the mothers. Hence the mothers would be quite protected, indeed.

No, I've already mentioned the penchant that "Celibate" Popes had for impregnating chambermaids. I'm merely under the impression that religions don't introduce double standards unless the members can see an immediate pay-off.
Why bother with breaking the rules for delayed gratuity? You steal, kill, fuck, drink, smoke and accept bribes all in the present.

Not even religious people are daft enough not to think of the immediate future, and the threat of not having anyone to "steal from, kill, fuck &c." would be quite the incentive to have the gay pope go all "oh, turkey basters are fine as long as there is no touching of the genitals," just like the straight popes went "sex is ok, but only as long as you are married and the genitals do touch." See - sex can be wrong and it can be right all at the same time. So can breeding.

Why, exactly, are we arguing about what a hypothetical and ultimately impossible (without time travel and extensive resources) Gay Catholic Church would have done to a potential Gay Western Civilization centuries ago, had the whole world been predominantly gay from the beginning of time?
The whole thing just seems sort of . . . gay.
I blame the economy.

Most likely it would be the same. Minorities and people who dont conform to the *norm* have always been discriminated against, scoffed at, unaccepted. So theres no reason to believe if the tables were turned, that it would be any different. But it's hard to turn the tables. Its easy to say "of course not, I wouldnt have any problem at all.'' We can never put ourselves in a purely hypothetical situation. Its always tainted by what we have been exposed to our entire lives.

So, yes I think it would be just as likely to have a world with a bunch of close minded prejudice homosexuals going "straight bashing".

Why, exactly, are we arguing about what a hypothetical and ultimately impossible (without time travel and extensive resources) Gay Catholic Church would have done to a potential Gay Western Civilization centuries ago, had the whole world been predominantly gay from the beginning of time?

Since when have you been adverse to nonsense?

Since when have you been adverse to nonsense?
Since I . . . You . . .
How dare you bring up precedent in a matter this crucial? This is fucking serious business!