More on the Topic

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5D61439F93AA35752C0A9639C8B63

Did you read what you posted?

First sentence: The sexual orientation of Abraham Lincoln is a topic of debate among some scholars.

Did you read ANY of the arguments presented as scholarly work (not gossip) in the link you referenced.

You post title states Abraham Lincoln's "gay proclivities" as fact.

That first sentence talks about his sexuality being a "topic of debate".

Something that is a "topic of debate" is not fact.

Please add the word "alleged" to your thread title.

You speak for yourself.

I'll do the same.

One's sexuality is not an accusation.

However, I deplore the use of sexuality to advance one's agenda(s) in the name of historical FACT.

See ya!

Are we talking heterosexual agenda or 'gay agenda'.

Let me guess.

Let's not drag the LGBT community into this. The OP came from your head...

You keep safe guarding your world view. I'm sure you join a long list of people who can confirm what you think.

I have a 'gay agenda'... Then you say I have just my 'agenda' ....which is it.

What's your agenda? Oh right.... To protect the good name of Lincoln. Me too.

This is what you're down to in that debate toolbox of yours? Lying?

Talking of Lincoln's sexuality has nothing to do with his "good name". If he were indeed Gay, it would have no bearing on my deep respect and admiration of him. And, I would fight anyone, tooth and nail, who tried to besmirch him because of it.

Quite frankly, your OP is offensive because YOU were making some point about his (alleged) homosexuality.

I guess the projection tool is still sharp...

You say 'If he were indeed Gay, it would have no bearing on my deep respect and admiration of him. And, I would fight anyone, tooth and nail, who tried to besmirch him because of it.'

See I think it does have bearing in a very positive way. And my admiration would not remain the same... It would increase even more. You think he would need more defending. That's the difference.

Are you that hung up on one's sexuality that it would change your opinion (positively OR negatively) about them? Wow. I was hoping we, as a society, were finally getting past that. I guess I was wrong... But, it DOES explain why you felt the need to post your OP. You're hung up on his sexuality, alleged or otherwise.

Lincoln was a person. His actions freed an entire race of people and saved the country. His sexuality means nothing to me. Just as his ethnic or racial backgrounds mean nothing to me.

Lincoln was a person.

Now run along Skippy...

Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

No...I believe all I had to overcome because of my sexuality makes it a gift because I see the world different than you....and clearly Lincoln did as well.

Run along? Petty and small and certainly nothing to do with Lincoln.

The 'use of sexuality' to what?


LOL.

...you were trying to make in your OP.

You brought up sexuality, Skippy. Not I...

I'm not furthering any agenda but if you think I have one, tell us what YOURS is.

Right...you don't have one (agenda.....not sexuality).

What's yours?

I'm a broker of facts.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Why did you state conjecture as fact in your OP? And, why won't you correct it?

You 'think' he was heterosexual.

For every point of evidence you can point to, I can counter.

Facts? The link you provided reminds everyone, the 'facts' are open to interpretation.

That makes him, by definition, heterosexual.

On edit: If the history books told us that Lincoln and Joshua Speed were partners in the modern sense, THEN your OP would be correct.

There's that comprehension thing again...

Good grief....being married and having children oversimplifies human sexuality. Anyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. And anyone can have children.

I have numerous gay friends with children from previous heterosexual marriages.

Need more?

I'm sure you also tell people "I have black friends".

Wow...

I AM GAY.

LOL.


Notice how you did not refute one example I gave to refute your false assumptions.

It can take only one time to make a baby.

And artificial insemination has been around since about 1890.

You write: 'If the history books told us that Lincoln and Joshua Speed were partners in the modern sense, THEN your OP would be correct. '

The 'modern' sense doesn't exist for anyone who engaged in homosexuality a 100years ago.

That's why it's modern.

"by definition," or otherwise.


Homosexuality is about orientation, not behavior.

Obviously, there's a much broader definition when taken in the context of today.

My point with the OP was that he posted a statement as fact when it has never been established as fact that Lincoln either gay or bisexual.

I'm into historical accuracy. If he said in his OP that Lincoln was allegedly gay, that would've been accurate, but the OP was trying to prove a point by lying about the subject. As an historian, I abhor when people bend facts to try to fit a narrative they're trying to advance.

As a historian, your profession has never bent the facts...because what... You are historians?

Angels in America, not a man shy about gay facts but also not a man to play about with conjecture presented as history.

LOL.

Does this film spend lots of time around Abe's sexuality at all? Does it present itself as an all encompassing portrait of the entire man and his life? I doubt it. From what I've read it is largely about the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Kushner is a historian himself, worked on the screenplay for years. His entire career is based on the unlikely success of a play titled 'Angels In America: A Gay Fantasia On National Themes'.
These things have considerable weight where as cynical wise cracks have none.

You are repeating much of what I said. It was, indeed, ignored.

PS- do you view being gay as cynical as you attribute to me. HINT: I don't.

a well known and respected man like Kushner without any shred of proof or evidence. It is morally absent to engage in that sort of attempt at character assasisnation without due cause. It is cynical and it is just stupid if you ask me. By which I mean your comments are both cynical and without merit.
I don't know any gay people who make allegations of moral corruption against others without any evidence. I do know many right wingers and straight folks who do so. I call it 'McCarthyite'.

Good grief.

Calling someone gay is not an 'allegation of moral corruption' or 'character assassination.'

I call that homophobia.

I don't believe the 'gay' theme for one minute.

Sharing your bed with another person of the same gender was common back then. It saved money for the young attorney (and his companions) when he was traveling.

And the wording and affectionate phrases people used with each other were much more 'flowery' back then. The letters from that era are quite syrupy, but you can't judge them using today's perspective.

And then someone mentions Lincoln's lack of female friends. That is true. Mary Todd Licoln was jealous to the point of insanity. Lincoln NEW BETTER than to ever talk or be friendly or nice to an attractive woman. And after the death of two of her sons and then Robert left to go join the war, she tipped right over...the general public was not aware of her continuing decline into insanity during Lincoln's presidency, but it was another burden he had to bear.

I disagree, but at least you made an argument.

Because two people always see the same thing when watching a movie....that's 'real'. Go back and look for the 'pins and needles' in the movie (that's a gay expression used by many older gays).

say what?

hmm both my mother and grandmother used that term, both about as straight as you can be...

...and what does it mean to them?

that tingly sensation when your foot goes to sleep or slight anxiety as in "waiting on pins and needles"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/on+pins+and+needles

used to mean dropping hints recognizable to other gays (example: 'I'm a friend of Dorothy'....gay icon in Wizard of Oz.

I couldn't find anything on the google linking the term to the word "gay" - and I sure don't remember it from my more urban days.

Look it up in the Queen's Venacular. That's a very famous and now rare gay lexicon I bought in the 80s at Lambda Rising (gay bookstore in DC).

sounds hilarious

Oh my goodness, you just bought history. I had no idea it was on Amazon. It is rich with all types of lost language. It's amazing. It is very rare! Congratulations! You are going to find it amazing. Most of it is no longer used. Great investment. WOW!

I bet gay means happy as well.

Lincoln is not a biography but about a specific 4 month period in 1865. As an out lesbian I realize that not everything is about lbgt civil rights. Even if Lincoln had been a gay man with a family what difference does it make today? Another historical figure who was gay. And???

Agree on the four month window.

As to whether or not being a homosexual has changed or influenced someone's world view, you tell me. I know it has for me. What you characterize as 'another historical figure who was gay' seems to diminish its significance.

The movie is based upon Doris Kearns' Goodwin's historical account of a certain time period in Lincoln's life, so if she did not cover it in her book, it would not be in the movie.

I don't know about Goodwin, but his co-author, Kushner, is an out gay man and Speilberg is liberal, so I don't think there was any agenda involved in omitting mention of the possibility that Lincoln was gay or bisexual.


IMO, it will be a good day for everyone when mentioning the orientation of a gay person is not expected as a matter of routine. If a movie is about the conflict Lincoln may have suffered because of his sexuality, then sure, his orientation would be relevant. If it's about getting the 13th amendment passed and Lincoln was not fucking Lee, then maybe Lincoln's sexuality is not relevant to the plot?

IMO, it will be a good day when we don't feel compelled to reference the sexuality of every person who is gay or transgendered, anymore than we reference heterosexuality every time we name a person who is heterosexual (as far as we know, anyway).

That's one argument and I don't necessarily disagree. For that to happen, the notion of discrimination and violence has to be eradicated and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Let's just take the Catholic Church who arguably advocates neither but who funds advocacy groups who want to treat gays differently. So long as we are treated differently, the notion of homosexuality is going to perhaps influence our worldview, life choices, perhaps our faith and politics. And that's why, in my opinion, it's important to include that in the whole picture of who a person is.

.

Read the complete thread and you would not need to ask.

Here is how I use the word:

Apparently you didn't read my usage or Dictionary.com's definition. See how it was used in the original post (see the part where I say it 'ignores his gay proclivities but it's still a good movie'). That usage implies proclivities is a good thing as is the movie as is being gay ('Gay is Good!' as the old activist chant once used).

Regardless, you are welcome to have that debate on this board.