Challenge: James Buchanan as the first openly gay president

Impossible. Very impossible, especially in a very conservative era like the mid-19th century (1850s, to be exact).

Unless we have a world where the roman politicians still performed orgies and sexual discovery and where major religions don't denounce it.
In this time line King James I of England can be the first open gay King of England.
And William Pitt the Younger as the first open gay Prime Minister of England
 
Unless we have a world where the roman politicians still performed orgies and sexual discovery and where major religions don't denounce it.
In this time line King James I of England can be the first open gay King of England.
And William Pitt the Younger as the first open gay Prime Minister of England

Certainly this would butterfly James Buchanan and United States of America away. That homosexuality would be acceptable thing, you should butterfly Christianity away, make this acceptable with homosexuality or keep that very small religion.
 
I'm not sure about that given that when Buchanan left office the country was coming apart at the seems and there was nothing he could do about it. How much you want to blame any of that on him or not is academic but I would think that Buchanan coming out in March 1861 would lead to the publication of whole volumes about how if the US had had a president who was not a mentally ill pervert the whole unfortunate aspect of American history better known as the War to Save the South From its Own Temerity could have been avoided.

Buchanan's role in sitting on his ass and hands meant the CSA had a very easy time of it organizing from the moment South Carolina seceded. If he can't be blamed for actually causing the ACW, he still deserves the title of Chief Midwife to said war, along with Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

Certainly this would butterfly the United States of America away. That homosexuality would be acceptable thing, you should butterfly Christianity away, make this acceptable with homosexuality or keep that very small religion.

WTF!?:confused: You're butterflying a hell of a lot more than that if you are making Christianity a "very small religion". You're butterflying Islam, the Age of Faith, much of the Middle Ages, and I don't want to think of what else.
 
Buchanan's role in sitting on his ass and hands meant the CSA had a very easy time of it organizing from the moment South Carolina seceded. If he can't be blamed for actually causing the ACW, he still deserves the title of Chief Midwife to said war, along with Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

I agree, I'm just pointing out what the basic perception would have been and his "personal issue" should he decide to make that public would have been a convenient excuse for a lot of people.
 
Why not William II or Edward II?

Didn't know these two had homosexual tendencies, I only knew about James I

Certainly this would butterfly James Buchanan and United States of America away. That homosexuality would be acceptable thing, you should butterfly Christianity away, make this acceptable with homosexuality or keep that very small religion.

How does the fact Christianity accepting homosexuality dissolve it. Jesus's teaching said nothing bad about homosexual and if anything the bible enhances homosexuality with the story of David and Jonathan.
(although I do have a story with David which is a little more explicit lol)
 
William II - no evidence either way. Never married, no known mistresses, no mention of any sexual encounters (no matter what modern day enlightened thinking postulates) =/ = must have been gay.

Wow how many gay popes does that mean we've had :eek:

:eek: Queen Elizabeth I was a lesbian

THIS IS THE ANSWER TO EVERT THING

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hey wait, Jesus never married, hanged around with 12 men and their is no mention of any sexual encounters ..... OMG
 
William II - no evidence either way. Never married, no known mistresses, no mention of any sexual encounters (no matter what modern day enlightened thinking postulates) =/ = must have been gay.

You'd be looking for a "long time male friend" who seemed to fill no reasonable purpose at court.

There's always the possibility of asexuality based upon physical inability. Not merely impotence, but down right genital deformation.

Wow how many gay popes does that mean we've had :eek:

Uh...I can only say, that one of my assistant Lutheran pastors made mention to me that if priests were allowed to marry "...then maybe there wouldn't be so many homosexuals in the Roman Catholic Church (hierarchy)."

:eek: Queen Elizabeth I was a lesbian (1)

Hey wait, Jesus never married, hanged around with 12 men and their is no mention of any sexual encounters ..... OMG (2)

1) I was ALWAYS under the belief that Elizabeth I's condition was so severe in terms of her personal biology that sex itself would have been physically painful for her. Gustavus Aldophus' daughter Christina, OTOH...

2) OMG, you've never heard of Mary Magdalene?:p
 
Top