WI: State enforced homosexuality?

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
With any number of POD with reasonable probability, have a government for even a brief moment to a civilization lasting many millenia sanction homosexuality upon its male/female populace.
Question doesn't make sense.

if by sanction you mean outlawing heterosexual activity then that society will not conform. Despite millennia of discrimination and repression homosexuality did not disappear as it is the natural state for a significant minority of the population. To expect that suppression of the sexuality of the majority will be practical is just plain daft. Even leaving aside the obvious conclusion that if they do they are signing their own death warrant as a society.

If you mean some kind of weird droite de seigneur where it is accepted that society members should conform to the homosexual demands of others then it may be sustained for a small section of society for some time but just as the feudal "right" rarely was enforced I wouldn't expect it to be sustained.
 
What you can have plausibly, and actually happened (to a point, it still happens in some groups) is enforced homosociality. That is, a society where social relations are supposed to take place only among either males or females, and, therefore, most forms of bonding (including love) are socially expected to take place among people of the same sex. This society will still have many people having heterosexual relations (and reproduction), but would attach little social value to them, perhaps describing heterosexual sex as something you have to do for reproduction/physical satisfaction alone, whereby actual relations ("marriages") are with people of your own sex.
Historically, many traditional societies were both homosocial and homophobic (in the modern sense) to varying degrees. A strong tendency to homosociality can be found for example both in some Ancient Hellenic and Classical Islamicate societies, with the consequence that some forms of homosexual sexuality being tolerated in both, despite having no legal recognition (and actually being illegal under most traditional interpretations of Islamic Law, despite the casualness they are described as happening in many Islamicate societies).
Historically, AFAIK, homosociality did not ever fully exclude some stigma against homosexuality. But I suppose you go further down that road and have a degree of "homonormativity" develop, by which I mean that people would be supposed to have primarily partners of the same sex (regardless of what they do in the bedroom) and law would be concerned with these.
This, of course, raises the question of what happens to children (raised collectively by the mothers?) and how, for instance, things like inheritance would work (perhaps this is a collectivistic society, or an exclusively matrilineal one). You could also have a patriarchal, dystopian version.
Well, if someone tried to actually implement Plato's Republic with some big twists, this could be a potential outcome.
 
How the hell would people reproduce? For the sake of argument, let's say the state does enforce such a thing, likely as a reaction to a sudden, unexpected social or ecological catastrophe— how the hell will people reproduce?

As for why I think a society would never naturally take on a homosexual cultural norm (without a tremendous circumstantial pressure, like an unlikely population crisis):

There has to be societal reasons for the development of homosexual cultural norms (as opposed to simple biological ones like the gay uncle theory and kinship selection). Of course, those social reasons become the norm and then could eventually become part of the legal code.

It wouldn't then be necessary for state enforced anything to be needed. For example, the REASONS that polygamy and polyandry are distinct are obvious. Societies that have polygamy (1 man, multiple wives) have totally different economic and social reasons for developing it than societies that have polyandry (1 woman, multiple husbands).

Then there are societies which are just sexually liberal, but this isn't the same as societies in which polygamy/polyandry are the norm. Like, in liberal societies, homosexuality is allowed more breathing room, and in some cultures, homosexuality can be cultural.

In Greece/Rome, homosexuality takes the form of an older male and a younger male. In Medieval Islam, it's also like that. In China...also like that. Um, interesting.

In Japan, female sexual relations were acceptable for young girls, but upon adulthood, it was thought to to be childish, and a woman should set aside such things to prepare themselves for a heterosexual relationship.

The Sambia people of Papua New Guinea engage in ritual oral sex. Older men feed younger men their semen, in the belief that this is how they "grow" up to become real men. Probably nothing even remotely gay about it— it's just culture.

Ancient Chinese conception of homosexuality (barring extremely liberal time periods like Tang China) was more cosmological. Gay relations were frowned upon, though not exactly taboo, as it was believed men are weakening their vital essence through sex. But homosexuality for women was neutral, since they do not lose vital essence through sex.

Modern Chinese conception of homosexuality is more akin to promiscuity. That is, a gay person is just more promiscuous than a heterosexual person, that their sexual orientation is the result of a tremendous sexual appetite beyond the norm, as opposed to a genuine difference of sexuality.

Lesbianism is also virtually unknown, unrecorded, and unremarked upon in almost every culture. Hell, when the Nazis were sending gay people to concentration camps, they only targeted male homosexuals. Female homosexuals were sent to insane asylums and detention centres instead. This is because, society prior to our modern era didn't really understand lesbianism. When lesbianism was first understood to be alike homosexuality, actual Lesbians denied that they were homosexuals. "I just have sex with other woman, I am not gay!" (interestingly, in the present time, according to anonymous surveys, lots of straight people have sex with people of their own genders...but they do not identify as homosexuals).

Also, to clarify, homosexuality is not the same thing as "actions and behaviours" that can be associated with homosexuality. This is important, especially in Theology, where we increasingly find that most world religions said either nothing about homosexuality, or are okay with it. But not anal sex (which is just as binding on heterosexuals btw. Sodomy =/= Homosexuality). Homosexuality (as we understand it) is also a very modern kind of concept, so generally these days we associate that term with a biological basis. Historically, there are multiple concepts of third genders, transgenders, and homosexuals that may overlap but not directly correlate to modern Americanized categorizations. Jewish Law has dealt with six genders (of various overlapping correspondence to our modern LGBTQ+ concepts) for example.

BUT....HOW I THINK A TOTAL CULTURAL HOMOSEXUAL NORM COULD BE DONE:

Sex segregation. Except for mating seasons, humans of different sexes do not mingle. This would naturally create a homosexual culture.

However, as a self-domesticated species, we do not have mating seasons. Domesticated animal species (like humans) are capable of reproducing almost at any time. So it's biologically difficult to justify why such a social segregation needed to be done. Maybe if we have an powerful AI god as a our government and it likes social engineering.
 
Last edited:
How the hell would people reproduce?

BUT....HOW I THINK A TOTAL CULTURAL HOMOSEXUAL NORM COULD BE DONE:

Sex segregation. Except for mating seasons, humans of different sexes do not mingle. This would naturally create a homosexual culture.

However, as a self-domesticated species, we do not have mating seasons. Domesticated animal species (like humans) are capable of reproducing almost at any time. So it's biologically difficult to justify why such a social segregation needed to be done.

Eugenics.

If you want to have the best population you can, especially in the early 20th Century when everyone was surrounded by enemies, it might occur to someone to enforce sex segregation so the government decides who breeds with whom.
 
Eugenics.

If you want to have the best population you can, especially in the early 20th Century when everyone was surrounded by enemies, it might occur to someone to enforce sex segregation so the government decides who breeds with whom.
That was already suggested by Plato.
 
Top