Yeah, more of the same from the Gay Agenda.
I get this all the time. I teach Shakespeare and my students don't know anything about him except that "he was gay."
There is no evidence to suppose that he was gay--none. All the evidence we have supports that he was totally hetero--he "had" to get married at 18, for example.
But that doesn't stop those who WANT him to be gay.
"But that doesn't stop those who WANT him to be gay."
I know this is naive, but maybe someone can enlightenment me.
What, exactly, does it MEAN to be (or label someone) gay? That the person is really attracted to the same sex? Or just that s/he has the qualities of the opposite sex?
I know effeminate men & tomboys who are married or in heterosexual relationships, so I often found that my own assessment was way off (and probably insulting to them).
So I don't know how people come up with these ideas about Shakespeare or Lincoln, etc. Maybe these figures, simply, displayed certain traits but were mature enough to sublimate them into normal relationships.
they do so want to be accepted as normal, don't they?