NationStates Jolt Archive

What if by some odd chance, all humans were homosexual? Would it be possible through evolution or natural selection or would it be a result of something else?

I'm jsut curious, I'm straight myself, I was just wondering what would happen if humans in the 21st century were all gay.

Oh, and a humorus quote by Ron White:
We're all gay... to a point.

If that's the case, then unless we fire up the cloning vats right quick, then it's "goodbye humanity, hello cockroach overlords!"

If that's the case, then unless we fire up the cloning vats right quick, then it's "goodbye humanity, hello cockroach overlords!"

You seem to be under the impression that homosexuality makes you sterile. Why?

If that's the case, then unless we fire up the cloning vats right quick, then it's "goodbye humanity, hello cockroach overlords!"

Meh, I'm betting the Platypus will have the last laugh.

If that's the case, then unless we fire up the cloning vats right quick, then it's "goodbye humanity, hello cockroach overlords!"

Well, what if humans had started out straight (mostly) but then evolved to be gay? Would our intelligence have already brought us artificial insemination?

You seem to be under the impression that homosexuality makes you sterile. Why?
That's almost exactly what I was about to say.

If all humans in the 21st Century were gay and if you'd assume that few children would be born - we can rest a bit easy about the population crisis :)

Well, what if humans had started out straight (mostly) but then evolved to be gay? Would our intelligence have already brought us artificial insemination?

Why do you presume a need for "artificial" insemination?

You seem to be under the impression that homosexuality makes you sterile. Why?

And you seem to be under the impression that I was serious.

I thought it would just be a decent setup for a lame joke.

And you seem to be under the impression that I was serious.

I thought it would just be a decent setup for a lame joke.

If lame = nonsensical and unfunny, then yes.

If lame = nonsensical and unfunny, then yes.

Just like you.

How cute.

* Waits for inevitable appearance of random nazi gay-bashing righters *

Just like you.

How cute.

I'd agree that I'm unfunny, but nonsensical? Honey, it's like you're not even trying... when in fact, the sad thing is that you probably were. :\

Why do you presume a need for "artificial" insemination?

*shrug* denno. But I'm thinking that many gays would not want sex with the opposite sex, and so woul dwant artificial insemination.

If that's the case, then unless we fire up the cloning vats right quick, then it's "goodbye humanity, hello cockroach overlords!"

I, for one, welcome our new cockroach overlords!

I'd agree that I'm unfunny, but nonsensical? Honey, it's like you're not even trying... when in fact, the sad thing is that you probably were. :\

Nah, I stopped trying a long time ago.

What if by some odd chance, all humans were homosexual? Would it be possible through evolution or natural selection or would it be a result of something else?

I'm jsut curious, I'm straight myself, I was just wondering what would happen if humans in the 21st century were all gay.

Oh, and a humorus quote by Ron White:

There are plenty of people who are mostly gay but who occaisionally have a drunken fumble with their hag who then pops out a kid. But in general people who want to have sex with members of the opposite sex will produce more offspring than those who don't. Sexual reproduction selects against genes predisposing one to homosexuality, but the tendency is not strong enough to get bred out entierly.

It's a bit like hemophelia. Enough people carry the trait, but not the full blown phenotypical expresion, that the gene lives on.

*shrug* denno. But I'm thinking that many gays would not want sex with the opposite sex, and so woul dwant artificial insemination.I've had it with the opposite sex twice. It wasn't so good, but hey. :D

What if by some odd chance, all humans were homosexual? Would it be possible through evolution or natural selection or would it be a result of something else?
You clearly have no grasp of evolution. In evolution a mutation occurs and if it helps something survive and reproduce it can get passed on to the next generation. That's natural selection and evolution. When there is no passing the mutation on there is no evolution. With homosexuality there is no way for gays to reproduce because we are sexual lifeforms and require both sexes for reproduction. That's why homosexuality is not and can never be part of evolution, only mutation or personal choice.

*shrug* denno. But I'm thinking that many gays would not want sex with the opposite sex, and so woul dwant artificial insemination.

You don't exactly need to have the penis inside the vagina during ejaculation to deposit some sperm in it, and you don't need all that advanced equipment to do it, either.

Nevertheless, if humans are somehow not only turned all gay, but all of us became idiots to the degree that we can't figure out any other way to deposit sperm inside some woman's cloaca, I'm pretty confident children would be made anyway, since there are many children out there fathered/mothered by gay parents who got together with a heterosexual in a vain attempt to escape the truth of who they are.

Shocking as it may be, a fullgrown faggot like me can indeed accomplish something even a pimple-faced 14-year old can when he knocks up Brandine from the other side of the trailer park.

You clearly have no grasp of evolution. In evolution a mutation occurs and if it helps something survive and reproduce it can get passed on to the next generation. That's natural selection and evolution. When there is no passing the mutation on there is no evolution. With homosexuality there is no way for gays to reproduce because we are sexual lifeforms and require both sexes for reproduction. That's why homosexuality is not and can never be part of evolution, only mutation or personal choice.

Meh, I was just wondering. I know it's not really possible, I can't really think of a way that it would be. I was just wondering.

Nah, I stopped trying a long time ago.

Well, it showed.

Well, it showed.

It amused me, so feel free to screw off.

You don't exactly need to have the penis inside the vagina during ejaculation to deposit some sperm in it, and you don't need all that advanced equipment to do it, either.

Nevertheless, if humans are somehow not only turned all gay, but all of us became idiots to the degree that we can't figure out any other way to deposit sperm inside some woman's cloaca, I'm pretty confident children would be made anyway, since there are many children out there fathered/mothered by gay parents who got together with a heterosexual in a vain attempt to escape the truth of who they are.

Shocking as it may be, a fullgrown faggot like me can indeed accomplish something even a pimple-faced 14-year old can when he knocks up Brandine from the other side of the trailer park.

I know that much. I was just owndering though. I know *many* gays would not want that, though. I know it's most likely not possible, and I'm not trying to troll. I was just kind of wondering what would happen.

It amused me, so feel free to screw off.

You of course understand that I shan't indulge your suggestion.

I know that much. I was just owndering though. I know *many* gays would not want that, though. I know it's most likely not possible, and I'm not trying to troll. I was just kind of wondering what would happen.

The gay people that want children would, and lo and behold, many gay people do want children. Then again, we're not idiots and we realise we don't need to stick our penises into vaginas to have children, so...

The gay people that want children would, and lo and behold, many gay people do want children. Then again, we're not idiots and we realise we don't need to stick our penises into vaginas to have children, so...

*sigh*
I know that many (if not most) gays want children.

But I wasn't really wondering how we would get to the point that the entire race was gay, I was wondering what would happen if we'd already reached that point. I know that it's impossible to reach that point, but I'm still curious. *shrug*

we don't need to stick our penises into vaginas to have children
Yes you do. You really do. Or sperm donor but that goes right back to a dick/balls and a pussy/womb/eggs. Unless you're a tapeworm or lower you need to have sex to reproduce. Test tube babies count.

*sigh*
I know that many (if not most) gays want children.

But I wasn't really wondering how we would get to the point that the entire race was gay, I was wondering what would happen if we'd already reached that point. I know that it's impossible to reach that point, but I'm still curious. *shrug*
The human race would likely die off or be greatly reduced because of a lack of people having hetero sex and kids.

Yes you do. You really do. Or sperm donor but that goes right back to a dick/balls and a pussy/womb/eggs. Unless you're a tapeworm or lower you need to have sex to reproduce. Test tube babies count.

Um.

*blinks*

What if by some odd chance, all humans were homosexual? Would it be possible through evolution or natural selection or would it be a result of something else?

I'm jsut curious, I'm straight myself, I was just wondering what would happen if humans in the 21st century were all gay.

Oh, and a humorus quote by Ron White:

Godammit, now im going too avoid public locker rooms....and showers.....Is that soap taped too the wall?

Yes you do. You really do. Or sperm donor but that goes right back to a dick/balls and a pussy/womb/eggs. Unless you're a tapeworm or lower you need to have sex to reproduce. Test tube babies count.

No, no I don't. I need in no way make contact between my cock and a vagina do have my sperm end up in a vagina. I need never, ever have sex with a woman to get her pregnant.

The human race would likely die off or be greatly reduced because of a lack of people having hetero sex and kids.

Well, overcrowding certainly won't be an issue...

*sigh*
I know that many (if not most) gays want children.

But I wasn't really wondering how we would get to the point that the entire race was gay, I was wondering what would happen if we'd already reached that point. I know that it's impossible to reach that point, but I'm still curious. *shrug*

And I'm telling you children would still be made by those people who want them. Heterosexuality or heterosexual sex are in no way a prerequisite for breeding. Sure, you would no longer have accidental pregnancies, but that's a good thing.

<mod deleted nonsense>

what... the hell..... :eek:

I'm a girl, thank you.

And I'm telling you children would still be made by those people who want them. Heterosexuality or heterosexual sex are in no way a prerequisite for breeding. Sure, you would no longer have accidental pregnancies, but that's a good thing.

Yeah, no more accidental pregnancies, which is a very good thing. But would anything else change? Would society be more sexual, or just more open about sexuality?

Yeah, no more accidental pregnancies, which is a very good thing. But would anything else change? Would society be more sexual, or just more open about sexuality?

Well, if everyone was gay, presumably there would be less call to hide gayness.

I think the really amusing bit would be watching all the homophobes react. I also think we all, gay, straight, or otherwise, would find that amusing.

Except that we would all be gay, not gay, straight or otherwise. But whatever.

Yeah, no more accidental pregnancies, which is a very good thing. But would anything else change? Would society be more sexual, or just more open about sexuality?

Well, I should hope for a better society, at least for me, but to speculate in how it would be strikes me as nothing more than delving into stereotypes.

Then again, it would be fun to see a minority of heterosexuals be ridiculed and oppressed, but I entertain that vindictive frame of mind only briefly before I recall that I am a better person than those straight people who stand for such things today.

It'd be because of women and all their bloody hormones poluting the water.
There should be a tax on being a woman.

Well, if everyone was gay, presumably there would be less call to hide gayness.

I think the really amusing bit would be watching all the homophobes react. I also think we all, gay, straight, or otherwise, would find that amusing.

Except that we would all be gay, not gay, straight or otherwise. But whatever.

Yeah... but homophobia would be a thing of the past, and would presumably have been bred out of everyone, so perhaps a few would still find it humorous...

Well, I should hope for a better society, at least for me, but to speculate in how it would be strikes me as nothing more than delving into stereotypes.

Then again, it would be fun to see a minority of heterosexuals be ridiculed and oppressed, but I entertain that vindictive frame of mind only briefly before I recall that I am a better person than those straight people who stand for such things today.

I'm not trying to delve into stereotypes, but I am curious about how things would change.

Yeah, no more accidental pregnancies, which is a very good thing. But would anything else change? Would society be more sexual, or just more open about sexuality?

I doubt it. As constantly noted, homosexuals and heterosexuals are exactly alike apart from the gender preference when it comes to love and sex. Society would still have plenty of mixed opinions on the matter, I guarantee you. Thank you for quoting that guy's post by the way. It was funny.

Fass: I certainly would hope there would be no societal mockery of the few heterosexuals. But considering how often oppressed ethnicities, genders, ect tend to return the favor despite knowing what it's like to feel it...I doubt we'd be so lucky.

Just like you.

How cute.


I bet he is cute. -ponders-

What if by some odd chance, all humans were homosexual? Would it be possible through evolution or natural selection or would it be a result of something else?

I'm jsut curious, I'm straight myself, I was just wondering what would happen if humans in the 21st century were all gay.
Two words Turkey Basters

No, no I don't. I need in no way make contact between my cock and a vagina do have my sperm end up in a vagina. I need never, ever have sex with a woman to get her pregnant.
OMG did Fass make a typo?:eek:

Well if you want to talk about Dawinistic Principles of evolution... Homosexuality would be an extremely unfavourable trait. You will never get a species that will evolve to be homosexual as being that effectively eliminates the chances of reproducing.

You can talk about artificial ensemination all you like, but that is an expensive procedure whereas natural reproduction is free. Thus there is a certain limitation on the number of children produced by that method and thus it is still favourable to reproduce naturally rather than by artificial means.

What if by some odd chance, all humans were homosexual? Would it be possible through evolution or natural selection or would it be a result of something else?

I'm jsut curious, I'm straight myself, I was just wondering what would happen if humans in the 21st century were all gay.

Why did you choose homosexuality for this topic? I would have thought that asexuality would make for a more viable and interesting subject.

Basically all that would be required for continued survival would be an escalated desire for children. Sure, men might not like having sex with women, but it would be necessary to get kids. The family structure, of course, would be very different from our own, and there would be almost no unwanted children.

Of course, once artificial insemination became available, things would be set, and you would see the old families breaking in half.

asexual reproduction would suck

Well if you want to talk about Dawinistic Principles of evolution... Homosexuality would be an extremely unfavourable trait. You will never get a species that will evolve to be homosexual as being that effectively eliminates the chances of reproducing.

You can talk about artificial ensemination all you like, but that is an expensive procedure whereas natural reproduction is free. Thus there is a certain limitation on the number of children produced by that method and thus it is still favourable to reproduce naturally rather than by artificial means.

Still, that is assuming that homosexuality is entirely a genetic phenomenon, whereas there are doubtlessly some environmental causes as well.

Also, artificial insemination need not be that difficult or expensive, you could merely put the semen in some other deposition mechanism (I believe someone mentioned turkey basters) and deposit it into the vagina that way. So long as you sterilise the...equipment before and after it should work OK.

I, for one, welcome our new cockroach overlords!
Chapeau! And again I was too slow... Ya beat me to it! :p
OMG did Fass make a typo?:eek:
It almost looks like it. Then again, I'm in no good reading-state right now...

Still, that is assuming that homosexuality is entirely a genetic phenomenon, whereas there are doubtlessly some environmental causes as well.

Also, artificial insemination need not be that difficult or expensive, you could merely put the semen in some other deposition mechanism (I believe someone mentioned turkey basters) and deposit it into the vagina that way. So long as you sterilise the...equipment before and after it should work OK.

Actually I would tend to argue that homosexuality is entirely environmental. The idea that it could be genetic is just plain ludicrous as it flies in the face of all principles of evolution.

Sure, working it could be cheap, but you would then need to expend significant amounts of time/money in finding someone willing to do that. Do not forget that time itself has an intrinsic value.

asexual reproduction would suck

On the contrary, just imagine the mayhem that would result if I could split in two like an amoeba!

*imagines the sounds of alarm bells, screaming, explosions, laughter, pigs barking and random bits of classical music.*

Actually I would tend to argue that homosexuality is entirely environmental. The idea that it could be genetic is just plain ludicrous as it flies in the face of all principles of evolution.

Because if a species was to mutate so it had a higher homosexuality rate it would die out right?

Then again, it would be fun to see a minority of heterosexuals be ridiculed and oppressed, but I entertain that vindictive frame of mind only briefly before I recall that I am a better person than those straight people who stand for such things today.

Oh great! Then we would have to organize a straight pride parade! :D

Why did you choose homosexuality for this topic? I would have thought that asexuality would make for a more viable and interesting subject.

I thought so, too, although I may be a bit biased (being asexual).;)

If everyone was asexual, I feel like a lot of problems (I see them as problems; other people might not) could be solved. Maybe then society wouldn't be so focused on sex and advertisers wouldn't make as many commercials have sexual messages when the product is something that has absolutely nothing to do with sex. There probably also wouldn't be nearly as many unplanned pregnancies and stuff like that. There would still be romance and stuff in the world because many asexuals are heteroromantic, biromantic, or homoromantic (some are aromantic like me, too), and then the ones who want kids could just have kids.

Wouldn't happen, though. Only maybe 1% of people now are asexual.

asexual reproduction would suck

Good thing that's not what asexuality means, then...

Why did you choose homosexuality for this topic? I would have thought that asexuality would make for a more viable and interesting subject.

I chose homosexuality because I'd been wondering about it, I never thought of asexuality at all. *shrug*

If everyone was asexual, I feel like a lot of problems (I see them as problems; other people might not) could be solved. Maybe then society wouldn't be so focused on sex and advertisers wouldn't make as many commercials have sexual messages when the product is something that has absolutely nothing to do with sex. There probably also wouldn't be nearly as many unplanned pregnancies and stuff like that. There would still be romance and stuff in the world because many asexuals are heteroromantic, biromantic, or homoromantic (some are aromantic like me, too), and then the ones who want kids could just have kids.

Wouldn't happen, though. Only maybe 1% of people now are asexual.

We can dream can't we?

We can dream can't we?

Yeah, we can dream.

On the contrary, just imagine the mayhem that would result if I could split in two like an amoeba!

*imagines the sounds of alarm bells, screaming, explosions, laughter, pigs barking and random bits of classical music.*
:eek:
I thought so, too, although I may be a bit biased (being asexual).;)

If everyone was asexual, I feel like a lot of problems (I see them as problems; other people might not) could be solved. Maybe then society wouldn't be so focused on sex and advertisers wouldn't make as many commercials have sexual messages when the product is something that has absolutely nothing to do with sex. There probably also wouldn't be nearly as many unplanned pregnancies and stuff like that. There would still be romance and stuff in the world because many asexuals are heteroromantic, biromantic, or homoromantic (some are aromantic like me, too), and then the ones who want kids could just have kids.

Wouldn't happen, though. Only maybe 1% of people now are asexual.



Good thing that's not what asexuality means, then...

But so many pornographers would go out of business! :eek:
Think of the pornographers!

if all humans were homosexual it would be a great boon for humanity. the incidence of unwanted, unplanned children would go down to close to zero. (except for those pervy kids who insist on doing that unnatural opposite sex penis/vagina thing *shudder*)

wanted children do better in life than unwanted children do. it would be a more dramatic effect that even the pill and abortion on demand have had.

I had understood that an "I'm not posting here anymore" thread is the last stupid thread that a person posts, and that after that, no more stupid threads are posted by that person.

??

I had understood that an "I'm not posting here anymore" thread is the last stupid thread that a person posts, and that after that, no more stupid threads are posted by that person.

??

Did the pancake post one of those?

Sure, why not.

Mainly the pinguins, yes...

What if everyone was homosexual?

Alright, for starters, the status of women would drop to the neighborhood of "sub-human" and exist almost exclusively as enslaved breeders. Femininity and everything the word denotes would be seen as abhorrent, especially in men, and would be the primary subject of ridicule in any society. Since "everyone" is homosexual, this would obviously include women as well. Rape, both male-female and male-male, would practically be institutionalized as a means of demonstrating social superiority.

Religion and superstition, especially bloodthirsty, domineering patriarchal cults, would be omnipresent in nearly every level of society. The brutality demonstrated throughout OUR timeline of history would be roughly equal with homosexuals, but it would be significantly redirected in its aims. Since the typical clan/family structure would be obsolete, men would primarily group together on the basis of ideology, perceived superiority, or the afore-mentioned cults. Civilization would be primarily hierarchal and caste-based, but would evolve in a presumably similar fashion as our civilizations.

Anyway, that would be the basics of it. Rather bleak, actually.

What if everyone was homosexual?

Alright, for starters, the status of women would drop to the neighborhood of "sub-human" and exist almost exclusively as enslaved breeders. Femininity and everything the word denotes would be seen as abhorrent, especially in men, and would be the primary subject of ridicule in any society. Since "everyone" is homosexual, this would obviously include women as well. Rape, both male-female and male-male, would practically be institutionalized as a means of demonstrating social superiority.

Religion and superstition, especially bloodthirsty, domineering patriarchal cults, would be omnipresent in nearly every level of society. The brutality demonstrated throughout OUR timeline of history would be roughly equal with homosexuals, but it would be significantly redirected in its aims. Since the typical clan/family structure would be obsolete, men would primarily group together on the basis of ideology, perceived superiority, or the afore-mentioned cults. Civilization would be primarily hierarchal and caste-based, but would evolve in a presumably similar fashion as our civilizations.

Anyway, that would be the basics of it. Rather bleak, actually.

so men are only tamed by their need for pussy?


seems to me that straight men kept women subjected for thousands of years out of that very same need. it didnt make society any better.

so men are only tamed by their need for pussy?


seems to me that straight men kept women subjected for thousands of years out of that very same need. it didnt make society any better.

Men will be men. The same men that kept women suppressed for millennia would suddenly have little or no need for them. There wouldn't even be the delusion of equality in anyone's mind, let alone necessity for it. It would be just like our brutally misogynistic history, only much, much worse.

Like it or not, human beings are animals, and the modern man is as domesticated as any of our livestock. We are tamed to be "civilized" and the classical familiar structure plays a massive role in that. Even if it was hideously skewed to benefit the male.

Men will be men. The same men that kept women suppressed for millennia would suddenly have little or no need for them. There wouldn't even be the delusion of equality in anyone's mind, let alone necessity for it. It would be just like our brutally misogynistic history, only much, much worse.

Like it or not, human beings are animals, and the modern man is as domesticated as any of our livestock. We are tamed to be "civilized" and the classical familiar structure plays a massive role in that. Even if it was hideously skewed to benefit the male.

yeah and if we were back in ancient greece that certainly would be (was) true. women today have rights because we fought for them.

besides, no matter how gay everyone is, men still need women to bear their children. some accomodation would have to be come to in order for each group to be able to reproduce.

yeah and if we were back in ancient greece that certainly would be (was) true. women today have rights because we fought for them.

besides, no matter how gay everyone is, men still need women to bear their children. some accomodation would have to be come to in order for each group to be able to reproduce.

Like I said, enslaved as little more then breeders. Kept to be raped out of necessity for children.

Like it or not, even in the most misogynistic of cultures, women are still loved by the men who "possessed" them. Oftentimes women possessed power and influence that they could exert through their man. This was certainly true up until they gained the rights they fought for. Without any kind of actual "love" or emotional attachment beyond being walking wombs, women would have no such dynamic for exerting themselves. I see no reason why women would ever get their own “civil rights” movement in a patriarchal homosexual society. None whatsoever.

Actually I would tend to argue that homosexuality is entirely environmental. The idea that it could be genetic is just plain ludicrous as it flies in the face of all principles of evolution.

Wrong. Homosexuality appears to exist in most animal species. That's not an accident or aberration. There are evolutionary advantages to having a portion of a species population be homosexual.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

"In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed," Bockman told LiveScience. "In some bird species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females, a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest."

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own. "


http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2004/01/on_adaptive_success_and_theories_of_homosexuality/

In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration. Real genetic diseases are really rare, and their frequency inevitably depends on their severity. A disease that is uniformly lethal must arise anew each generation, so its frequency is equal to the mutation rate, say one in 1 million. A disease that causes only a 10 per cent drop in offspring production (fitness) is 10 times more common than a lethal disease - about one in 100,000. Similarly, a mere 1 per cent drop in fitness leads to a frequency of one in 10,000. If homosexuality has a frequency of 1 in 10, the fitness loss could be no more than 0.001 per cent, which is completely undetectable. A "common genetic disease" is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease.


http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-06/960498851.Ev.r.html

One of the major arguments regarding the fitness of homosexuality, at least in vertebrates, seem to revolve around child rearing. Caring for offspring is very expensive per individual caregiver, while yielding tremendous evolutionary benefits to the population, by directly enhancing the fitness of the next generation. Because the cost to the individual is so great, many populations have evolved ways of sharing the costs of raising the offspring, such that the benefits to the population are equalized by general costs to the population. In several social mammals, this is done through wet-nursing by non-pregnant females of related newborn, sometimes even requiring the forced abortion of the litters of subdominant females to produce more wet-nurses (seen in some Wolves). Likewise, removing a portion of the population from breeding relieves the breeders of some of these costs either directly by assisting with child rearing, or indirectly by taking over other costly activities (like food collection) so that t he parents can spend more resources on their progeny.

Like I said, enslaved as little more then breeders. Kept to be raped out of necessity for children.

Like it or not, even in the most misogynistic of cultures, women are still loved by the men who "possessed" them. Oftentimes women possessed power and influence that they could exert through their man. This was certainly true up until they gained the rights they fought for. Without any kind of actual "love" or emotional attachment beyond being walking wombs, women would have no such dynamic for exerting themselves. I see no reason why women would ever get their own “civil rights” movement in a patriarchal homosexual society. None whatsoever.

You are clearly clueless about gay culture. We actually like, respect, and enjoy the company of women. Unlike many straight men who are only interested in sex and what they can get out of them (child care, cooking, cleaning, etc.).

don't know, but forfred phelps the world would be a living nightmare.

I had understood that an "I'm not posting here anymore" thread is the last stupid thread that a person posts, and that after that, no more stupid threads are posted by that person.

??

Errr...

I thought I wouldn't be posting here anymore, but I'm back... after a few days.

And I was bored, tired, and kind of curious. I apologize if this seems like a stupid thread.

*snip*

Your sexism and homophobia are featured prominently in that post.

More anal leakage.

You are clearly clueless about gay culture. We actually like, respect, and enjoy the company of women. Unlike many straight men who are only interested in sex and what they can get out of them (child care, cooking, cleaning, etc.).

Don't patronize me on the lack of respect men have towards women. I am all too aware of how despicable men can be (and all too often are) in regards to their treatment of women. There are few things I find more revolting then misogynist.

There is no such thing as "gay culture." There is no mold that everyone suddenly falls into when they walk out of the closet. Homosexuals are no different then heterosexuals beyond the subject of their sexual arousal. Surely you aren't asserting that the idiotic stereotypes shoved down our throats by the media and many unfortunately shallow gays themselves is anywhere close to a valid depiction of “what it means to be gay.” What you call gay culture is nothing but a whim of cultural circumstance just like any other temporary human sub-culture. It’s bullshit, through and through.

Your sexism and homophobia are featured prominently in that post.

Way to fail, bud. I am neither homophobic nor sexist; in fact, I am the polar opposite of both, and insistently so. Heterosexuals disgust me far more and far more often then homosexuals, mainly because I happen to be one and the degradation of my peers reflects on me. My posts do not reflect my opinion of gays, but of humanity in general and men in particular. I was trying to illustrate that the rampant misogyny that has characterized centuries of human culture would be exponentially WORSE if EVERYONE was homosexual. Men have always sought to suppress women and glorify masculinity. Personally, I find this to be abhorrent, but it’s fucking true. It has been true throughout history, it is true today, and it would be true in our theoretical alternate-reality.

Don't patronize me on the lack of respect men have towards women. I am all too aware of how despicable men can be (and all too often are) in regards to their treatment of women. There are few things I find more revolting then misogynist.

There is no such thing as "gay culture." There is no mold that everyone suddenly falls into when they walk out of the closet. Homosexuals are no different then heterosexuals beyond the subject of their sexual arousal. Surely you aren't asserting that the idiotic stereotypes shoved down our throats by the media and many unfortunately shallow gays themselves is anywhere close to a valid depiction of “what it means to be gay.” What you call gay culture is nothing but a whim of cultural circumstance just like any other temporary human sub-culture. It’s bullshit, through and through.



Way to fail, bud. I am neither homophobic nor sexist; in fact, I am the polar opposite of both, and insistently so. Heterosexuals disgust me far more and far more often then homosexuals, mainly because I happen to be one and the degradation of my peers reflects on me. My posts do not reflect my opinion of gays, but of humanity in general and men in particular. I was trying to illustrate that the rampant misogyny that has characterized centuries of human culture would be exponentially WORSE if EVERYONE was homosexual. Men have always sought to suppress women and glorify masculinity. Personally, I find this to be abhorrent, but it’s fucking true. It has been true throughout history, it is true today, and it would be true in our theoretical alternate-reality.

Women would be gay too. I was thinking that the sexes would be more equal.

Way to fail, bud. I am neither homophobic nor sexist; in fact, I am the polar opposite of both, and insistently so.

I don't trust your word.

I was trying to illustrate that the rampant misogyny that has characterized centuries of human culture would be exponentially WORSE if EVERYONE was homosexual.

Yeah, and that's nonsense. Sexual orientation doesn't have all that much to do with misogyny; to the extent it does, it concerns the sexual objectification of women, which would not be done by males in a society where everyone was gay.

I don't trust your word.



Yeah, and that's nonsense. Sexual orientation doesn't have all that much to do with misogyny; to the extent it does, it concerns the sexual objectification of women, which would not be done by males in a society where everyone was gay.

Exactly...

Women would be gay too. I was thinking that the sexes would be more equal.

Radical Centrists, whether or not he admits it, is apparently convinced of the notion that the only value of women is as sex objects, and leads it to the conclusion that if they were not valued for sex, they wouldn't be valued at all.

With the understanding that his premise is flawed, and indeed, that his premise is a product of a society dominated by heterosexual men, one comes to a different conclusion.

Women would be gay too. I was thinking that the sexes would be more equal.

Since "everyone" is homosexual, this would obviously include women as well. Rape, both male-female and male-male, would practically be institutionalized as a means of demonstrating social superiority.


*cough*

I mentioned that. Heh. ;)

Women, subsequently lesbians, would still have copulate (barring a suitably alternative) with men to produce children. This would likely be unpleasant for everyone involved.

*cough*

I mentioned that. Heh. ;)

Women, subsequently lesbians, would still have copulate (barring a suitably alternative) with men to produce children. This would likely be unpleasant for everyone involved.

As Fass already pointed out, there doesn't need to be sex for sperm to meet an egg.

*cough*

I mentioned that. Heh. ;)

Women, subsequently lesbians, would still have copulate (barring a suitably alternative) with men to produce children. This would likely be unpleasant for everyone involved.

Yes, but as we both said, EVERYONE IS GAY. That means, men would not treat women like sex objects, and vice versa, because they would not be necessarily interested.

Though if somebody had to be a sex object, who would it be now rather than the opposite sex?

Women would be gay too. I was thinking that the sexes would be more equal.

They would. While there might still be some problems with individuals (as there always is in any human society), for the most part men and women would be equal. Most of the gay men I know have more female friends than male friends. In my 37 years on earth I've only encountered 2 misogynistic gay men. They exist, but they are quite rare. Hell most gay men openly express both masculine and feminine traits. That's one of the advantages to being gay.

Like I said, enslaved as little more then breeders. Kept to be raped out of necessity for children.

Like it or not, even in the most misogynistic of cultures, women are still loved by the men who "possessed" them. Oftentimes women possessed power and influence that they could exert through their man. This was certainly true up until they gained the rights they fought for. Without any kind of actual "love" or emotional attachment beyond being walking wombs, women would have no such dynamic for exerting themselves. I see no reason why women would ever get their own “civil rights” movement in a patriarchal homosexual society. None whatsoever.

men would still love their mothers and sisters.

because we live in the modern world, not one started from scratch, no one could afford to keep half of humanity locked up for breeding purposes. the more equal a society, the better of they are economically. men simply couldnt afford to keep women enslaved. its bad economics.

Though if somebody had to be a sex object, who would it be now rather than the opposite sex?

Men, of course. Men are for sex, women are for friendship. ;) And women don't tend to sexually objectify their partners as much as men do (though, of course, some do), so it would be primarily men.

They would. While there might still be some problems with individuals (as there always is in any human society), for the most part men and women would be equal. Most of the gay men I know have more female friends than male friends. In my 37 years on earth I've only encountered 2 misogynistic gay men. They exist, but they are quite rare. Hell most gay men openly express both masculine and feminine traits. That's one of the advantages to being gay.

Yeah, a very small majority of gay men would be misogynistic, and a small majority of lesbians would be misanthropic (if that's the right word). Therefore, neither sex would be objectified, since neither sex would be interested in each other.

I don't trust your word.

Not my problem, chump. If I was talking about heterosexuals, I doubt you would object.

Yeah, and that's nonsense. Sexual orientation doesn't have all that much to do with misogyny; to the extent it does, it concerns the sexual objectification of women, which would not be done by males in a society where everyone was gay.

You assume, falsely, that the flaws of man would simply not exist in the first place if men were homosexual. This is absolutely not the case. The hyper sexualized objectification of women is not the cause of misogyny, but a symptom of it. The actual cause is much deeper and much more primal in terms of human evolution. Men themselves would largely remain the same, especially in terms of domineering patriarchy (see God, the bastard he is) and sexual exploitation and objectification. The cultural demonstration would be what would shift.

The idea that if everyone was suddenly gay, women would be respected because gays "enjoy their company" is painfully naive. Humanity is brutish at its core. Homosexuals no less so.

This would likely be unpleasant for everyone involved.

Wrong. Many gay men get together with lesbians to have children. I considered it myself before I decided against having kids. They were a very nice lesbian couple and I hated to disappoint them, but I'm just not really cut out for fatherhood.

One of two things would happen:
A) Mankind would realise that it was neccesary to continue to breed. The alternative would be extinction.

B) They wouldn't.

However, I don't see how they would have gotten to the 21st century, since earlier peoples (and many modern ones) are completely driven by pleasure.

Not my problem, chump. If I was talking about heterosexuals, I doubt you would object.

To the notion that heterosexual males are somehow inherently sexist? Yes, I would.

It's the oldest excuse in the book.

The actual cause is much deeper and much more primal in terms of human evolution.

No, it isn't. Were that true, we would see misogyny as a universal, more or less unchanging trait of human societies. We don't.

Humanity is brutish at its core.

Unsupported nonsense.

No, it isn't. Were that true, we would see misogyny as a universal, more or less unchanging trait of human societies. We don't.

Indeed. There are even *gasp* matriarchal societies. Misogyny is a learned behavior, not an innate one.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml

You know, it actually is theoretically possible for this to happen. When the genetic portion of sexuality is isolated, then it might be possible to attack populations of specific sexualities virally. Ebola or worse, only affecting people who are attracted at all to the opposite sex... Would suck but it wouldn't affect me directly.

As for who would be the sex objects? Using popular gay culture (*shudders*) as a reference, I'd say that the people who would be objectified and reduced to complete societal uselessness would be the paragons of masculinity that Radical Whatshisface is rambling about. Their opinions would count for nearly nothing, other than tabloid pieces; a lesbian Oprah would invite them on her show; things like that.

As Fass already pointed out, there doesn't need to be sex for sperm to meet an egg.

This is true, yes, but I am working under the assumption that everyone just didn't "turn" gay one day. Rather, that we were all along from our most primitive state.

Yes, but as we both said, EVERYONE IS GAY. That means, men would not treat women like sex objects, and vice versa, because they would not be necessarily interested.

Though if somebody had to be a sex object, who would it be now rather than the opposite sex?

I don't doubt for a second that the massive amount of sexual objectification would simply be redirected towards men. It would be no less degrading and no less annoying.

men would still love their mothers and sisters.

because we live in the modern world, not one started from scratch, no one could afford to keep half of humanity locked up for breeding purposes. the more equal a society, the better of they are economically. men simply couldnt afford to keep women enslaved. its bad economics.

Would not a homosexual couple like to raise their child together? Mothers, perhaps even sisters, would likely be taken out of the picture entirely. The entire structure of family would change completely.

Besides, men suppressed women for a painfully long period of time, and that was WITH the traditional family. Gender equality is a very modern idea with few precedents and one that took far too long to get enough social currency. There is no reason to assume that it would automatically become the norm if everyone was homosexual.

Wrong. Many gay men get together with lesbians to have children. I considered it myself before I decided against having kids. They were a very nice lesbian couple and I hated to disappoint them, but I'm just not really cut out for fatherhood.

"Many gays" is not the same thing as "everyone is gay." EVERYTHING would change. In the most basic terms there would be two groups. Men and women. Neither with any interest in the other. It makes things difficult.


Indeed. There are even *gasp* matriarchal societies. Misogyny is a learned behavior, not an innate one.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml

Must be damn nice. I'd trade "western values" for that any day.

It's a shame though, that "One of the Last" part is very telling. :(

Who was it learned from? Why was it taught? What caused it in the first place? Just because something is socially or culturally indoctrinated doesn't mean that it isn't a part of who we are. We created gods to validate our nature, governments to enforce it, and families to perpetuate it. In everyone of these endevours men have dominated purely because they could. Because they could force their will on others and justify themselves in doing so. It is primitive and it is brutal of us, but it is what we have always done.

The modern world does not simply exist today as an independant and exclusive entity. It is the product of a very long social evolution, and evolution can be a very harsh mistress.

PANCAKE'S BACK!!!!



Seriously, have you ever noticed that two of the finest civilizations in history (Greek and Rome) Have been run by ephebephiliac (Liking teenagers) bisexuals? I think we might want to look into this as a form of government.

Would not a homosexual couple like to raise their child together? Mothers, perhaps even sisters, would likely be taken out of the picture entirely. The entire structure of family would change completely.


no. well yes. of course. but it would likely work more like this...

absent a sperm market which would advantage women in the baby creation process, a male couple would contract with a woman to bear their child. it would be perhaps in exchange for the semen necessary to start a child of their own. the male couple would take whatever child the woman bore them, male or female. no matter the gender, its their child just as it is today. the children of male couples would tend to be 50% female.

the same with the children of female couples.

men and women would mix just as they do today, they just wouldnt "date". there might even be a 4partner marriage that develops so that everyone would get to raise their own children. all business, political, social things would remain the same (except for the dating/marriage thing)

so in the end boys would have a good chance of being raised in a family with at least one female member. he would make friends with girls in school and at work just as men do today.

there is no reason to suppose that men would devalue women any more than they do today.