California and Gay History

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Well that's nice

And completely irrelevent

I'm just taking the piss out of you, Ted.

Cali's alright.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
The real problem is that gay people always think everyone else is gay... even if they're not.

History books would be full of gay agenda!

Not quite. Not all gays agree on who was/is gay. For instance, I seriously doubt Abraham Lincoln was gay.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by MrFun



Not quite. Not all gays agree on who was/is gay. For instance, I seriously doubt Abraham Lincoln was gay.

Why?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by MrFun



Not quite. Not all gays agree on who was/is gay. For instance, I seriously doubt Abraham Lincoln was gay.

Maybe not, but I'll bet that Henry VIII was

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Why?

The claims that others make that Lincoln was gay is based on spurious misperceptions. Oh wow; Lincoln shared a bed with a few other men when he traveled as a lawyer.

Well to start with, it was not unusual for men who traveled together in the nineteenth century to share a bed. The people who INSIST until they're blue in the face that Lincoln was gay distort history and insult real, historical research. They apply today's perception of sexual orientation anachronistically to an earlier era.

Were there historical figures who had sex with others of the same gender? Yes. Were there historical figures who had romantic relationships with others of the same gender? Yes. But there was not the same kind of conception of being gay as there is today.

It's important for the cause of equal rights for gays to finally publicly acknowledge past historical figures who were "gay" but not at the expense of relying on lies and misinformation if it's not true in the first place.

[Jon Miller]

Buchanan on the other hand might have been

and I have shared beds with guys, and am not gay

JM

[Dis]

gay history.

[Dis]

gay history is about as useful as black history.

I'm sure you guys will say I'm a racist. But I see little point in black history. All it does is divide the races up. You don't see Asian history in schools. It's all appeasement to make minority groups feel better.

ALL history should be taught. No matter who made the history.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by MrFun


The claims that others make that Lincoln was gay is based on spurious misperceptions. Oh wow; Lincoln shared a bed with a few other men when he traveled as a lawyer.

Well to start with, it was not unusual for men who traveled together in the nineteenth century to share a bed. The people who INSIST until they're blue in the face that Lincoln was gay distort history and insult real, historical research. They apply today's perception of sexual orientation anachronistically to an earlier era.

Were there historical figures who had sex with others of the same gender? Yes. Were there historical figures who had romantic relationships with others of the same gender? Yes. But there was not the same kind of conception of being gay as there is today.

It's important for the cause of equal rights for gays to finally publicly acknowledge past historical figures who were "gay" but not at the expense of relying on lies and misinformation if it's not true in the first place.

Great points.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dis
gay history is about as useful as black history.

I'm sure you guys will say I'm a racist. But I see little point in black history. All it does is divide the races up. You don't see Asian history in schools. It's all appeasement to make minority groups feel better.

ALL history should be taught. No matter who made the history.

You have a good point but most of our history is white/Euro centric

I think the black experience is the most central point in our entire history out of all of them, wars and empires were created around the slave trade, the fabric of our culture was also shaped around the slave trade

[Dis]

the thing about black history in my school is we never learned about african history. Only about black inventors and civil rights activists and such.

This should be taught in the regular history course. There should be no black history. If you include them, then you have to include asians, native americans etc. Which they don't.

[Ted Striker]

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Buchanan on the other hand might have been

No. I'm from his home town. I'm sure it would have come up. Even the revisionists here don't say that about him. He came into office as a divorcee (our only divorced president) and his daughter was first lady.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dis
gay history is about as useful as black history.

I'm sure you guys will say I'm a racist. But I see little point in black history. All it does is divide the races up. You don't see Asian history in schools. It's all appeasement to make minority groups feel better.

ALL history should be taught. No matter who made the history.

The history of African-Americans could be seen as a history of a constant struggle to call for all Americans to put into pratice the ideals of democracy and equality. In that aspect, the history of African-Americans is definitely important to learn and study.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Great points.

You realize this means you actually agree with me on something.