Earliest possible LGBT rights movement in the United States

I'm putting this in post-1900, but if there's a compelling reason to believe that this could have happened pre-1900, please share.

What is the earliest possible point that we could have seen the formation of an effective LGBT rights movement in the United States? I suppose I'm using the post-Stonewall hay rights movement as my template, considering the dearth of substantive victories for LGBT individuals before that point.
 
Given how much of the resistance to LGBT rights is based on religious beliefs, you would probably need to find a PoD that results in the United States becoming less religious earlier and/or faster. It might also be worth exploring the effect the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s had on things. Where would LGBT rights be today if the epidemic were more serious, less serious, or didn't happen at all?
 
I remember reading a book by James Dobson, yes, the Focus on the Family guy, and he said masturbation wasn't really discussed in the New Testament because he didn't think God thought it was all that important. He went on to say that he didn't want to go against what your pastor might be saying, but he had seen young people racked by so much guilt over masturbation he didn't want to add to it.

Wow.

Let's say this attitude and belief was present at the founding of the Virginia colony in 1607, maybe combined with a belief that masturbation gives an outlet to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Might make for a very different United States. Yes, I really do think attitudes about masturbation influence a lot of how people view sexuality more generally.
 
I remember reading a book by James Dobson, yes, the Focus on the Family guy, and he said masturbation wasn't really discussed in the New Testament because he didn't think God thought it was all that important. He went on to say that he didn't want to go against what your pastor might be saying, but he had seen young people racked by so much guilt over masturbation he didn't want to add to it.

Wow.

Let's say this attitude and belief was present at the founding of the Virginia colony in 1607, maybe combined with a belief that masturbation gives an outlet to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Might make for a very different United States. Yes, I really do think attitudes about masturbation influence a lot of how people view sexuality more generally.
I thought that line about 'spilling seed' was the basis for banning aberrant sexual practices and masturbation being frowned upon. That and 'be fruitful and multiply.' You'll either need to remove those passages or have a different interpretation become dogma.
 
. . . or have a different interpretation become dogma.
I'm not saying all of us here at Alternate Hist are nerdy, brainy people who like to analyze things, but I certainly fit the nerdy category! I like to live inside my head a lot even though there are probably plenty of areas I'm not all that particularly smart in.

Okay, I remember a scene in the movie Lone Star (1996) in which the base commander is visiting a bar as part of his determination of whether to make it off limits for base personnel, and his father who's he's estranged from is the owner of the bar. They talk stiffly a little bit. Church is brought up as competition for the bar or at least people's time and attention. The father matter-of-factly says, "Most people choose both."

And I think that's really kind of true. Most people believe in religion but don't really pay all that much attention to most of the dogma.
 
Last edited:
And I think that's really kind of true. Most people believe in religion but don't really pay all that much attention to most of the dogma.

True. I have many friends who're believing Catholics, but they all supported the Marriage Equality Referendum here - and are generally fully supportive of LGBT rights - and had no time for any objections from the clergy. Their attitude was 'move with the times, basic humanity trumps what imperfect men think the Word of God is'.

Which is key to it all I think. My friends are believers in God, but they don't believe that priests are somehow more qualified to interpret God's will than they are.
 
One posible 17th Century PoD eliminates religious groups in emmigration to North America. The Puritans & their fellow travlers remain in Europe & immigrants are mostly non fanatics with liberal and libertine attitudes. I suspect in this case much looser attitudes towards 'alternate' sexuality would be in place and such alternates be much more open. The prudes would remain in the Old Country & remain more influential there.
 
The question for pre-1900 for me is if a millennial radical anabaptist sect can produce a homophile interpretation of the New Testament and win converts and plan for a white settler national homeland which forces a political issue much like Mormonism with polygyny.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
Have a case come before the Surpream Court that defines sexual consent.Making rape illegal but homosexualality legal.any time post 1786 is good for that.
 
Have a case come before the Surpream Court that defines sexual consent.Making rape illegal but homosexualality legal.any time post 1786 is good for that.
yes, very disappointing that we as human beings didn't hit upon focusing on the main standards of consent and nonbullying MUCH earlier. A lot has to do with the differential of who's powerful and who's not in society.

But you'd think parents would be highly motivated to protect their children. And one would think that the discovery that a lot of abuse is perpetuated by a relative, or a trusted family "friend", or someone else known to the family and child would come much earlier.

I have read that listening to and believing the child helps, esp. competently making sure this same individual can't abuse the child again in the future. But excessive catastrophizing does not help.
 
Top