What drives so many of our academics to be full of s..t and project early 21st century insanity back on former centuries. Most of this is simply verbose psychobabble with a propagandistic point to make.
Revisionist history strikes again
Oh.....the writer doesn't mean "gay" like "happy" but "gay" like......oh.
Then the answer is definitely yes -- Lincoln was a homosexual. Along with Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Jesus and "disciple whom he loved," and St. Paul, that whole "thorn in the flesh" thing. And, lest I forget -- the Three Stooges. As my wife pointed out while we were watching them tonight, they always slept together. Even in the episodes in which they were married (to women, that is) the boys always slept together. Hmmm....that can mean only one thing, right?
The problem with this "historian" and others like him is that they have one-track minds. And diseased ones, too. They cannot even imagine strong friendships, even love, between men without those men winding up in the sack. And they cannot imagine people sharing a bed together without there being sex involved, even though that was very common not so long ago, and it was even common for travelers to share beds with strangers if there were no other accomodations in a town. Now, I'm sure that this guy has wound up in bed with strangers countless times, but....
It's pathetic that this kind of intellectual (and it's a stretch to use that word) wanking ever sees a printed page.
I heard Lincoln had an affair with Alexander.
Oliver Stone could make another porn movie about it.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Lincoln was gay. John Wilkes Booth was a spurned lover.
Lincoln wasn't gay, but he was a trendy metrosexual. That explains his presence at Ford's Theater.
From what I've read about Mary Todd Lincoln she's the type of woman who could've turned him.
But seriously, this is just pathetic.
"For this case, any trained scholar who (like the present writer) is gay has a substantial advantage, the very same intuitive feel that mainstream analysts have for heterosexual politics."
This guy is sick and pathetic. He attempts to use a famous American to make himself fell better. He must have a terribly twisted life.
How selfish.
It seems to me that there is a gay agenda that most liberals, especially from Hollywood, want to foist upon the American public. I have just read about Oliver Stones recent movie, a movie in which Alexander the Great is portrayed as gay. This doesn't surprise me. It seems that Hollywood and the entertainment industry have for some time tried to soften American public perceptions of gays, have tried to make the gay lifestyle acceptable to public taste. This is done through the media and can be seen through the various media outlets. For example, Spears, Christine and Madonna lesbian kissing for the youngsters on MTV, lesbian scenes in big Hollywood movies (Hours, Monsters, etc.), Will and Grace on TV (which supposedly follows Friends, and have you notice the latest effeminate male adds for Friends!). All this was coming out of Hollywood at the same time as the gay marriage issue and presidential election was heating up. It no surprise then that the Hollywood elite had given their support to Kerry and hoped he would support gay marriage one he became president (if Kerry was initially against gay marriage, he'd no doubt flip flop). This media blitz has been well orchestrated. The Hollywood elite wants to push the liberal agenda, especially on the issue of gay marriage. I'm sure they believe in the power of their media to control your thoughts, sell you an identity, repackage history, control you through emotion and sex. Their arrogance and imperialism know no bounds. But, thankfully, America won't suffer this burden.