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

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

what if the world started off with men only loving men and women only loving women

Within the space of a handful of generations, most of the homosexuals would die off, decimating the human population. Eventually, the children born from the few, ostracised heterosexual couples will be left. Depending on how many there were, the human race might be close to extinction and may not remain viable. Assuming there were enough, depending on your view of whether or not people are born gay, the numbers would shift drastically toward a heterosexual majority.

 

[masterfyoog]

To be quiet honest very little would change. Most wars etc are from how humans function, not how what our sexuality is. There are tons of people that were gay throughout history that we would have never know, they did not fit into any stereotype. I don't know if sexuality is a big enough effect on a person to really change the outcome of history. I'm gay and I dont see how it has drastically affected my life to this moment. I sleep with women instead of men. I feel that society seeing me as gay has affected me more than me actually being gay. The abuse I have taken and the friends I have lost, the backstabbing that has occurred and the awkwardness that some people carry about the subject affects me more than going home to my girlfriend. So if the world was gay then we would all just go home to our girl/boy friends and the straights would feel the stereotypes, groupings and just stares glaring down on you.

Which brings up, why do I have to fit within a category? Butch, Andro, Lipstick, Chapstick, Fem, etc... wtf

And we already call you Hetero's "Breeders"

 

[vashthblackseed]

We could less populated... but more fabulous.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

To be quiet honest very little would change. Most wars etc are from how humans function, not how what our sexuality is. There are tons of people that were gay throughout history that we would have never know, they did not fit into any stereotype. I don't know if sexuality is a big enough effect on a person to really change the outcome of history. I'm gay and I dont see how it has drastically affected my life to this moment. I sleep with women instead of men. I feel that society seeing me as gay has affected me more than me actually being gay. The abuse I have taken and the friends I have lost, the backstabbing that has occurred and the awkwardness that some people carry about the subject affects me more than going home to my girlfriend. So if the world was gay then we would all just go home to our girl/boy friends and the straights would feel the stereotypes, groupings and just stares glaring down on you.

Which brings up, why do I have to fit within a category? Butch, Andro, Lipstick, Chapstick, Fem, etc... wtf

And we already call you Hetero's "Breeders"

im not talking about sexuality effecting a person but rather societies view of people due to their sexuality and how that shapes their life. do you think Einstein would have been as successful if he was facing criticism and oppression because of his sexuality? what if he never gave up on science and thus pushed the development of the atomic bomb back 5-10 years, how would WWII have ended? do you see how oppression due to one's sexual orientation can have drastic effect on a person and thus drastic effects on the world. im trying to find the effects changes such as these can have on the world and how history is a fragile thing

 

[Ciarant]

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.

Oxford Dictionary defines science as: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

A science is something that creates a theory based on observation (this it shares with social sciences) and experiment (which it does not, at least not in a completely empirical and standardised manner which science aims for), the latter with which a theory can be proved wrong. For example, Karl Marx's theory of repeating history can never be disproven totally in any debate, as any event can be seen through the 'lens' of that theory. If there is evidence contrary to it, or that does not fit within it, it is not necessarily the end of the theory. This 'get out of jail cause' means that it has a strength in not being able to be so easily discredited, but also weakens its case for being a true and perfect representation of the world.

With science, however, a single piece of contrary evidence, that can be repeatedly demonstrated through experiment is enough to overturn a whole theory. And if there is an alternative theory, then that will be adopted. For example the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos was abandoned (Eventually) for the Copernican model when more powerful telescopes revealed flaws in the theory.

That doesn't make science 'better' than social sciences. But they are not the same thing.

Edit: Realised I am derailing the thread a little, so I will address the OP. Ancient Greece, as I believe an above poster has said, was very much into bisexuality. As I understand it they viewed 'love' as something that occurred in a male homosexual relationship, and that heterosexual relationships were solely for the purpose of procreation (Not an expert). So you might want to look into that, and how their society differed from ours socially.

 

[Ciarant]

Sorry, double posted, hit the wrong button, meant to add an s to relationship and ended up causing spam >.<

 

[Blunderboy]

How can you ignore the biological factor when it is certainly the biggest aspect?
It is pretty much the only thing that would make a difference. It doesn?t matter what the specifics of 'normality' are, anyone who doesn?t fit that tends to be ostracized.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well if we're assuming that the human race didn't die out after a couple generations due to the low number of heterosexual couples, then that would probably mean that procreative sex would be held differently than romantic sex. Males and females would still have sex, but it would be more of a social arrangement or duty probably. They'd still have their lovers of the same sex, but they make babies to carry on their legacy. Which I imagine would have incredibly far reaching effects. It's very hard to predict what would happen in such a world without taking specific situations and applying the switch only within that small context.

I imagine that sexual segregation would be a big thing, at least in the sense that each sex would tend to stick to themselves beyond procreation. There would probably be plenty of instances of sexism and oppression based on sex, for either sex.

 

[efAston]

Tchaikovsky tried to kill hisself just after getting married, by walking into a frozen lake. Marriage was necessary for keeping up appearances in the nineteenth century, and even into the fifties this was a problem for people whose sexualities were unaccepted. That should be pretty adaptable.

Mozart was a ladies' man and a coprophile. He was one of the people who established the romanticism, which lead to the cultural and political trends today away from piousness. It's hard to tell, however, if someone being particularly sexual translates to them being particularly heterosexual. Some of these people may have been bisexual and just never cared about it enough to go against social expectations (or never have been caught).

On another note, political marriages were never motivated much by personal interests, so royal alliances would have been completely different. You could pretty easily propose an alternative history where WWI never happened, by shuffling around Victoria's and Wilhelm's families.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

This is the strangest question I've ever seen on here. The answer, obviously, is everyone would be dead.

 

[efAston]

How can you ignore the biological factor when it is certainly the biggest aspect?

How can you ignore the physical aspect of Groundhog Day?

 

[Blunderboy]

How can you ignore the biological factor when it is certainly the biggest aspect?

How can you ignore the physical aspect of Groundhog Day?

Erm, what? I don't understand the reason for this, or the point you're attempting to make.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

-snip-

1. Yes I did read the edit.

My main problem with this is your edit2. To ignore boilogy. The main reason is our biology has defined basically every social issue. The REASON gays are discriminated against is because the "hetro is good, gay is bad" view came primarily from christianity. THAT view, came from the basic idea that "natural" things were better and "unnatural" things were wrong. As in, having sex with opposite gender got you kids beings good, and having sex with same gender did nothing but pleasue so that was bad.

Just saying "how would society change is gay was the norm..BUT ignore biology" doesnt work that way. Social ideas have a source, and you cant just ignore the source and wonder how society would be different.

If you took a social isse like race discrimination, then THAT works the way you want it to. Because unlike sex/reproduction, skin color/ethnicity is locational. All you need to do then is presume the most prominent ethnicity was another one, and it works. You cant do the same with sex because its an inherent fact with biology, and humans couldnt exist without it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

First of all, we'd be dead within one generation.
If procreation were possible, then women would kill men off. (Women are better at having babies - not sexist - just biological fact - where's the fetus going to gestate?)
If we managed to re-arrange the entirety of genetics just to suit this idea, then we'd lose most of our culture, because the taboo side creates most of the great art work - so we'd have statues of penis's, boobs and vulva's everywhere. (And I've no idea on the plurals there)

Oh, and if we're completely ignoring biology, then men don't exist as they'd have no reason to mutate from women.

And social science itself would be ridded from the world, because who's gonna study it? Certainly not people who ignore the rest of science for a fantasy ideal.

Finally, the winning gender would divide itself into bread-winners and child-minders, marry and wonder what it would be like if the child-minders didn't have to live with the bread-winners.

we were inspired by another project from a previous class about how society would view periods if men had them.

/facepalm

There's that total fantasy that sociolgy is famous for.

You mean the monthly cycle that represents fertility but throws the hormones into imbalance?

Worshipped in Old times, Feared in Medieval Times, Blamed for Madness in Victorian Times, Understood and held on a false pedestal in Modern times...just like it was for Women.

Biologically completely impossible, failing to understand that you'd require a fetus/ovum producer for the male - which would also give the female the insemination problem - and the musclature to hold it...and on and on and on.

 

[flippedthebitch]

You are doing this for what grade? Y'all better be in college or something. A gay culture is in its nature today an underground culture. Not in the sense that its frowned upon, even though it still is in a lot of places, but that it's defined more by how it compares to an average life and being free and independant and basking in your differences. So if sexuality were to change would a whole lot change with it? Or would heterosexuality simply become the underground movement? Elvis would still shake his hips and all the pretty boys would scream his name.

 

[masterfyoog]

So wouldn't this be the same thing as researching the past. You should have studied how being gay has limited people or how famous people would have changed due to being a minority. Just switch homo and hetero is making the world the same. Its different if you say what if Einstein was gay and the minority. If he was the majority then perhaps nothing would have changed. Or ask yourself what would have happened if he had delayed his work by 10 years, but how would that be affects by him sleeping with a man?

I mean somethings might have changed, if you have ever heard "If Michelanglo were straight the sistine chapel woulda been painted with a roller" Now its a joke and probably not true, but who knows. As it is he is believed to have been gay, but it is not fact.

 

[FlipC]

Ignoring the obvious problems with such a society, social science is based on the assumption that people are people, will remain that way and are thus understandable.

As such the world in terms of society will likely be pretty much as it is today. The UK's Daily Mail newspaper will be whining about Bed & Breakfast owners being persecuted for refusing rooms to straight couples; US Republican politicians will make yucky faces over the idea of a man and women kissing in public and wanting to get married as if their emotions were somehow real; prominent figures will end up in sham marriages to hide their 'deviant' sexuality; and religious nutters will be holding "Going to Hell" placards at straight funerals.

The latest fashions and dance trends will spring from the underground straight clubs and designers will be daringly straight and be accused of feminising men on the catwalk.

Wars still will be and will have been fought and most probably for the same types of reasons.

It's difficult to say about differences in material progress. Sure Turing might have greatly advanced the computer age had he still been alive, but would he have been this way without the influence of Babbage? As has been mentioned such innovations rarely happen in isolation a few things might arrive 'late' and others 'early', but on the whole I doubt this would have little overall impact

On the alternative side research into HIV/AIDS would have most likely started a great deal sooner.

 

[Harbinger_]

A: Not something that would need to be concerned about as the human race would be extinct.

B: I have no idea as I'm not american and not familiar with your history.

C: I'd imagine more or less, more than likely less that things would run the same.

 

[Gizen]

I'm certain this has already been mentioned, on account of it's obvious, but if being gay was the norm, the way the world would be drastically different as to be unimaginable. You know, on account of homosexuality doesn't result in procreation, and artificial insemination is a fairly modern invention. So, last I checked, roughly 10% of the population was gay, so if things were reversed, 10% of the population being willing to breed wouldn't result in a very diverse gene pool, leading to a lot more diseases and birth defects, not to mention probably quite a bit of inbreeding. And whereas the people who are gay in the real world frequently have to try and hide their sexuality, in this fantasy world, heterosexuals would have no such problem. If anything, the world would be even MORE biased against homosexuals, because the very small percentage of the population who'd be willing to engage in procreation would become that much more valuable. The entirety of civilization as we know it would have evolved completely differently. Hell, the entire species could potentially have evolved differently in such a situation. First thing that comes to my mind when I imagine a species where only a small percentage of the population is actually responsible for breeding are insects like bees and ants. Afterall, in order for population levels to at least stay consistent, let alone for them to grow, heterosexual couples would have to be putting out enough babies to make up for the fact that 90% of them would be gay. I.e. Heterosexual women would have to either be pregnant and pampered 100% of the time, or the species would have to adapt in such a way that birthing multiple children at once became the norm, which would require so many biological changes that we wouldn't even be considered human anymore.

I'm tired, and going in the circles. In summary, this is a really stupid question and I don't think whoever asked it actually bothered to think about it too much.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

well, heterosexuality would stop being taboo, as it would be necessary to breed. science would advance faster to allow in-vitro fertilisation so that people wouldnt have to go against their sexuality to breed.
with scientific advancement in this field, many scientists would work on stem cell research. so there we go.